Unfortunately, there are not a huge number of jobs around at present.

The only thing that my niece can get at present is part-time in an independent jewellery shop in Leeds – after becoming the first of our immediate family to get a degree.

In the case of this young woman, she has a geology degree and had organised work experience for herself, in a local museum. In other words, something that was relevant to her degree and her career hopes. That was stopped when she was told that she had to do WorkFare in Poundland. In other words, work experience had nothing to do with anything.

Her subsequent work for Morrisons illustrates two things: that she's employable and that she's not afraid to work.

at the risk of sparking an inter-personal (but not personal) argument, what is her degree in, and where from?

What a shame the Coalitions slave labour scheme has been scuppered

.

I wonder what will be the next Dickensian scheme they will try to implement.

Fine art from Leeds College of Art & Design, which has a very good track record on providing people for industries that require designers etc.

I couldn't give a fook if she'd never taken an exam in her life.
If the works there, the @rseholes should pay them the going rate.
End of!

Well that shows your ignorance of the jobs that are available in museums. Curators of various collections and so on are highly qualified people. There are other jobs in the educational departments of large museums that require specialist subject knowledge.

Sal Paradise - rlfans no. 1 philistine.

but they're not workshy freeloaders doing 16 hours a week at Morrisons, I am sure

Are suggesting working part time while volunteering elsewhere in order to further ones ambitions for a better career is work-shy and free-loading behaviour? Or is that kind of thing only acceptable for people from wealthy backgrounds funded by rich parents who can therefore afford to work for nothing as interns?

Social mobility? Obviously not allowed in Standee-land.

How is doing 16 hours at Morrisons workshy freeloading?



I understand that workers freeload on a number of things like staff toilets. Why bother using the toilets at home when you can use them at work? Might as well keep your own water bill down



Then of course there's the staff discounts you get for working in a supermarket. Some people work more hours for those discounts which is an outrage!

I'm not up to speed on this one, how does it work?

Do Poundland (etc) claim that they are taking on staff-for-free for positions that they otherwise would not fill? i.e., Extra staff just to give those staff work-experience?
If so, how is that verified?
Or do Poundland (etc) simply rotate staff that they get for free whilst the taxpayer picks up the bill?
If the latter, then IDS has a feckin nerve criticising tax credits (which IMHO should be reduced/abolished and a living wage introduced instead).

This one is not done and dusted. There is still the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court. Curious - should said girl lose in Supreme Court who will cover the Government's legal costs?

That regardless, this whole episode has probably done her career prospects no good. She will now be listed as a potential trouble causer who employers will probably choose to avoid.

Still, so long as Phil Shiner and his mates have made a few quid out of it job's a good 'un.

It's the latter though they may try and dress it up as the former. Poundland say that they have slots free to give the unemployed some work experience and the girl in question was given the job for two weeks. The Job Centre tells an unemployed person this opportunity has arisen and that they must accept the post or lose their job seekers allowance. Poundland doesn't pay the employee (or the government) a penny for the persons services.

The case of the older bloke is actually worse as that would have involved him working 30 hours a week for his £71 JSA for six months. Tax payer funded exploitation and nothing less.

This is a joke, right?

I would say she has managed to raise her profile and is doing exactly the kind of thing this government wants which is funding her own unpaid intern-ship via her part time work thus not having to claim the JSA benefit.

But hey, I guess we should all kow-tow and put up exploitation regardless. God knows where you and I would be if the "potential trouble causer"'s of the past had shied away from standing up for their rights because they were afraid of getting labled.

She hasn't done anything unpaid, she's been in receipt of benefits.

Having read more about this, my understanding is the scheme, as designed, did not correspond with the legislation, as enacted. I suspect the legislation will be redrafted and the scheme reimplemented.

Perhaps the placement was of use to her. She has since got a job at Morrisons.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the long-term unemployed to be required to do something in return for their benefits. What format that should take though is up for debate.

I don't know about you, but I *am* an employer and I can tell you with certainty that this young lady has shown exactly the type of intiative and determination that a lot of organisations would value.

In my experience, people who have a history of running to the employment tribunal quickly get blacklisted in the industry they work.

This is not quite the same, but I think you can see the point I am trying to make.

Hand's up who has been waiting for the above tripe from Standee?

She worked for poundland for free because her JSA was not a wage and she recieved no wages from Poundland. It was a benefit provided to help her seek work. If you want to argue her JSA was her pay for working at pound-land then she would have been being paid less than minimum wage which is illegal. Her JSA simply cannot be considered pay in exactly the same way other benefits those on a low income receive are not considered pay. They are benefits.

If you think (as I am sure you do) people should accept work placements like this then when they do get put on such schemes they should be paid the minimum wage and the employer should pay it, not the taxpayer.

Please enlighten us all what you would do for under £80 a week?

I get the impression that you want the unemployed to be overworked for as little money as possible.

I would say doing as she did, gaining experience relevant to the work she wants to do as a career, was of far more use to her than the placement she got. I think her JSA funding that was absolutely fine and it's even better that she has become more self sufficient since by getting a part time job thus not claiming JSA any more.

What is also apparent that forcing her to take the Poundland job was all about getting someone to take a job, any job, without considering if it was going to give her relevant experience for the career she is aiming for.

As she is 24 it was £56.25, not the £71 you get if you are over 24.

She hasn't done that though and I fail to see how any intelligent employer would mistake one for the other.

I do see the point you're trying to make, but I don't agree with it.

I remember trying to get by on £56.25 a week, it was depressing and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I've since been put on DLA and get a higher rate of JSA because of my disability.

Whilst I'm grateful for this financial assistance, money isn't the answer to everything and I'm sure I'd be better off on less money in a career that I like. Of course as I progress in a career, money would go up as it does but as seen with the Cait Reilly case, the main ministers (not all) put in charge of helping the unemployed couldn't care less about individual needs and would rather shove everyone into working at Poundland. It's easier to get people working in Poundland than it is getting people to work in a job that suits their ability. Work Program providers have long term relationships with the likes of Poundland and if you want help with anything beyond Poundland then you have to do it by yourself as I've found out..

Absolutely. She should have bent over and allowed herself to be kicked, while at the same time tugging the forelock.