Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
not, like, all of them.
not massively profitable companies
and who it's for, obvs.
as there almost certainly will be.
After 2 months of her just sitting about she was told she didnt get a job and wont be getting a reference as she was "less than mediocre" at her work. Made me laugh quite a lot
Dont care anymore about anything
£3 for over 24s?
...why not pay them a good wage?
if they really cared about getting them into sustainable work you'd think they'd make it more appealing.
beyond the work experience, what do they actually get out of it?
when in reality minimum wage is nowhere near living wage for most people and in any case hasn't risen in line with other economic factors (unlike rail fares to take one example)
I think the point of the exercise is to make the dole completely unappealing while trying to make a dent in the recession with slave labour
To be fair, there is some validity to the argument that a lot of people who've been out-of-work for six months would benefit from structure and routine to prepare them for work but a lot of it is to get rid of the idea of being on benefits as a 'choice'. The second part of your sentence certainly applies to a lot of the 'work for free for huge companies' stuff. I'd say this is more of an attempt to reinvigorate the big society.
They'll shuffle the yoof straight onto this programme ie they're extending this idea to all unemployed rather than just long-term claimants
It's people who've spent less than 6 months in employment, rather than unemployment. So it'll presumably be aimed at people who've never really worked before. You'd hope that didn't mean straight from signing on though - you'd want to give people a chance to get work off their own backs first...
but that'll be all school leavers then? - those that finish A-levels but can't afford to go to university + those that fancy a break on the dole after finishing university?
basically fiddling the statistics aren't they. wouldn't surprise me if someone on a programme like that, even though they're still signing on, are classed as being 'technically employed' or whatever just to bring the numbers down.
do be so silly!
Loads of local charities and social enterprises would very much like assistance and extra staff if possible but can't afford to pay them. So there would be real work to do that'd be loads more interesting and involving than shelf-stacking for Tesco but the only way they'd exist as paid jobs is if the DWP put up the money, which they did under Labour with the Future Jobs Fund but clearly the Tories aren't going to do.
lots of services have gone and the gov wants to rely on other things to replace them - for no money
My only major issues with it are
a) I think it's too many hours. Given the JSA policy is that 16 hours a week+ doesn't allow you sufficient time to seek work they should stick to that for this. Or change their rules to allow anyone who finds their own internship or whatever to continue to receive JSA.
b) it's not clear from the article whether the work'll be tailored towards people's interests and future career plans.
c) it's worrying that people lose their benefits entirely if they quit. I used to work on a similar (albeit paid) scheme under Labour and one of the problems is you would sometimes come across genuinely valid circumstances where someone would want to leave (e.g. bullying or exploitation) and it does basically tell young people that employers can do what they want and you can't quit, which isn't an ideal message.
as this is something a lot of young people won't be used to, especially if they come from families who've never worked and estates where lots of other people don't work either.
I also think the idea of unemployed people doing placements at charities, social enterprises and things that benefit their communities is a very good thing if done the right way.