Young jobseekers work for free or lose benefits

Article in the Guardian today.

Britain's young unemployed are being sent to work for supermarkets and budget stores for up to two months for no pay and no guarantee of a job, the Guardian can reveal.

 

Under the government's work experience programme young jobseekers are exempted from national minimum wage laws for up to eight weeks and are being offered placements in Tesco, Poundland, Argos, Sainsbury's and a multitude of other big name businesses.

 

The Department for Work and Pensions says that if jobseekers "express an interest" in an offer of work experience they must continue to work without pay, after a one-week cooling-off period, or face having their benefits docked.

 

Young people have told the Guardian that they are doing up to 30 hours a week of unpaid labour and have to be available from 9am to 10pm.

Full article

Personally, I think it's disgusting. Slave labour. If these companies want people to stack shelves, then they should at least be paying minimum wage. They can afford it.

Worse still, this potentially cuts off a lot of jobs for people who aren't necessarily the youth unemployed. From the 'employer's' perspective, why pay someone to do menial work when the Government is providing you with young workers for free?

Shambles.

Article in the Guardian today.

 

 

 

Full article

 

Personally, I think it's disgusting. Slave labour. If these companies want people to stack shelves, then they should at least be paying minimum wage. They can afford it.

 

Worse still, this potentially cuts off a lot of jobs for people who aren't necessarily the youth unemployed. From the 'employer's' perspective, why pay someone to do menial work when the Government is providing you with young workers for free?

 

Shambles.

Article in the Guardian today.

 

 

 

Full article

 

Personally, I think it's disgusting. Slave labour. If these companies want people to stack shelves, then they should at least be paying minimum wage. They can afford it.

 

Worse still, this potentially cuts off a lot of jobs for people who aren't necessarily the youth unemployed. From the 'employer's' perspective, why pay someone to do menial work when the Government is providing you with young workers for free?

 

Shambles.

Don't agree that it's slave labour. They can choose to not do it if they want. Such comparisons belittle true slavery.

And I have no problem with people being required to work for their benefits. There is both a benefit to society and a benefit to the individual of getting people back to proper productive work.

However, sounds like this is all wrong if it is turning in to a cheap alternative for the employers, rather than being paid minimum wage. That just serves to undermine the job market as a whole.

I agree with the princilple of making them work for free, but not convinced that throwing them at the private sector is the right way.

Time willl tell. If 20% go on to get paying jobs that they started doing fro free, then I guess it will be deeemed a success.

I am sure that there are a number of kids who are getting dough from ma and pa. So in a sense, yep, you're right - not everyone has to do it. For those with less well-heeled folks, it pretty much becomes a necessity. So for some, they'll have to work for nothing. Big business is the beneficiary.

Why can't the likes of TESCO offer paid work experience?

I think it's a brilliant idea. Get the workshy slobs to earn their benefits.

Also note Pap's location. It speaks volumes.

All well and good that they have to "earn their benefits" but they should only be doing an amount of work equivalent to the minimum wage.

I agree with the princilple of making them work for free, but not convinced that throwing them at the private sector is the right way.

 

Time willl tell. If 20% go on to get paying jobs that they started doing fro free, then I guess it will be deeemed a success.

Exactly. I think it would be better if they were put to work doing work for the good of the community as a whole - clearing graffiti, fly-tipping and litter for example. I guess the argument would be that there are young people out there that have never worked at all and this at least gives them valuable experience that they may otherwise not get.

Agreed.

As the state is paying them, they should work for the benefit of the community, doing work that would otherwise not be done.

They should not be effectively subsidising a private company.

I'm sure that small shopkeepers will be delighted that the government is giving their competitors free labour.

They aren't criminals! While I'm sure there are young workshy slobs on dole, I'm sure there are many that are not. I don't really have an opinion either way on this particular story, I just think it's a sad day when over 1 million young people are unemployed with their only hope being unpaid work in a nothing job. It highlights the mess that Labour started and the Tories continue.

I think it's a brilliant idea. Get the workshy slobs to earn their benefits.

 

Also note Pap's location. It speaks volumes.

Not really, mate. We already have enough evidence of your faux bigotry. Bloody good try, though.

Not really, mate. We already have enough evidence of your faux bigotry. Bloody good try, though.

there are plenty in Liverpool who claime sick benefit and have a nice bit of cash in hand work on the side as well, it is people like that they need to really start getting at.

i suggested working for benefits a while ago on here and it is the right thing to do, gets people used to the routine and structure of a job, and if they want money from the tax payer they need to do something to earn it, would ideally be jobs in the community that help improve the areas though

What about middle aged folk on the dole? Shouldn't we get those work shy scroungers out working for free?

It would certainly stop some members posting their cr@p all day.

So we are turning from a 'nation of shopkeepers' to a 'nation of shelf stackers' !

there are plenty in Liverpool who claime sick benefit and have a nice bit of cash in hand work on the side as well, it is people like that they need to really start getting at.

 

i suggested working for benefits a while ago on here and it is the right thing to do, gets people used to the routine and structure of a job, and if they want money from the tax payer they need to do something to earn it, would ideally be jobs in the community that help improve the areas though

There are plenty in any town or city in the UK who claim sickness benefit, not just Liverpool. But you carry on with your stereotyping, eh.

Whilst there is some merit in people getting into the 'work ethic', there is another side to those people doing jobs in the community. Some of those jobs (road sweeping, graffiti cleaning) are being done by employed people. Are you suggesting the employed people should lose their jobs so that the workshy (to use a hackneyed phrase) have jobs to do for free?

Because that doesn't solve any problems, does it.

So we are turning from a 'nation of shopkeepers' to a 'nation of shelf stackers' !

Don't forget the hordes in non jobs created by Labour.

Don't forget the hordes in non jobs created by Labour.

There are plenty in any town or city in the UK who claim sickness benefit, not just Liverpool. But you carry on with your stereotyping, eh.

 

Whilst there is some merit in people getting into the 'work ethic', there is another side to those people doing jobs in the community. Some of those jobs (road sweeping, graffiti cleaning) are being done by employed people. Are you suggesting the employed people should lose their jobs so that the workshy (to use a hackneyed phrase) have jobs to do for free?

 

Because that doesn't solve any problems, does it.

not stereotyping, we both know Liverpool has a higher percentage than the average town.

nothing wrong with people on JSA of all ages doing some king of work in return for some money (benefits), everyone is a winner if it is done correctly.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2011/04/04/more-than-76-000-merseysiders-on-incapacity-benefit-to-undergo-fitness-for-work-test-100252-28453203/

good old scousers eh?

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2011/04/04/more-than-76-000-merseysiders-on-incapacity-benefit-to-undergo-fitness-for-work-test-100252-28453203/

 

 

good old scousers eh?

12:04 PM on April 4, 2011

A good comments from that article:

GREAT MOVE. Too many people in this city who are lazy and find any excuse to claim incapacity benefit. I know someone who is 100% blind, and yet travels to work, uses a computer, self independent etc. QVC were taking on about 50 new staff a few months ago, all with the ability to work from home using a data terminal. Just because you're disabled in some way it doesn't mean you can't work.

not stereotyping, we both know Liverpool has a higher percentage than the average town.

 

nothing wrong with people on JSA of all ages doing some king of work in return for some money (benefits), everyone is a winner if it is done correctly.

You are quite right to point that out, but in terms of people claiming benefit, both in percentage terms and overspend (all fraud is lumped in with this), London is your actual winner.

You are quite right to point that out, but in terms of people claiming benefit, both in percentage terms and overspend (all fraud is lumped in with this), London is your actual winner.

large parts of London are an absolute sh*thole, and the tragic thing is it has more opportunity to work than anywhere else. there are plenty of people in London on the take, but culturally Liverpool is the city with the biggest association

ironically scousers are resourceful people who are clever at finding a way by, they often don't like playing by the rules though and see the benefit claiming as fair game against a "government and country" who owe them

Wouldn't having them do charity work etc be more beneficial for society than more 'stick them in the private sector' nonsense?

What is the age range on this by the way? Does dune qualify?

Wouldn't having them do charity work etc be more beneficial for society than more 'stick them in the private sector' nonsense?

 

What is the age range on this by the way? Does dune qualify?

Unfortunately he doesn't. So he's still free to spend all day flicking between the spread of right wing propaganda, w/\nking and thinking about his next avatar.

Blimey. Most of SWF in agreement (about the principle of people doing "something useful" to earn their benefit payment.)

I am equally sceptical though as to the motives of Tesco et al.

If 'we' (society) could prove that the roles these companies are allocating to job seekers are indeed "extra" nice-to-have type tasks that they wouldn't employ someone to do (none such tasks spring to mind) then I would see it as a good thing.

If, however, they are simply replacing 'minimum wage' employees with job seekers then that is at best self defeating and at worst morally wrong.

They'll make a socialist out of me yet!

Blimey. Most of SWF in agreement (about the principle of people doing "something useful" to earn their benefit payment.)

 

I am equally sceptical though as to the motives of Tesco et al.

 

If 'we' (society) could prove that the roles these companies are allocating to job seekers are indeed "extra" nice-to-have type tasks that they wouldn't employ someone to do (none such tasks spring to mind) then I would see it as a good thing.

 

If, however, they are simply replacing 'minimum wage' employees with job seekers then that is at best self defeating and at worst morally wrong.

 

They'll make a socialist out of me yet!

Do you think this needs to go to 'golden posts'? I can't think of many politically motivated threads that have ended in almost near-all agreement?

large parts of London are an absolute sh*thole, and the tragic thing is it has more opportunity to work than anywhere else. there are plenty of people in London on the take, but culturally Liverpool is the city with the biggest association

And largely because people like dune and yourself continue to perpetuate the stereotype you picked up from Bread and Harry Enfield

That said, there is an element of truth in some of that. While things have got markedly better, the city, like most large cities, has a lot of problems to address. Generally though, it's delineated like any other place - crap areas and good areas.

The problem is, when depicting the city, the media has always enjoyed giving the rest of the country something to chuckle about rather than giving a balanced depiction. It'd be like doing a reality show in a rough Southampton council estate and saying "hey kids, this is exactly what Southampton is like".

Of course, the other factor is "Merseyside". If a serious crime is committed in Hampshire, no-one automatically thinks "ah, it must be Southampton". However, there's a natural association between Liverpool and Merseyside. People from outside end up equating the two, which is a trifle unfair. There are almost as many people in Merseyside as there are in Hampshire ( 1.5m v 1.7m ). Would you have been happy if the likes of the Paulsgrove riots reflected badly on Southampton? Probably not, but that happens to Liverpool all the time.

ironically scousers are resourceful people who are clever at finding a way by, they often don't like playing by the rules though and see the benefit claiming as fair game against a "government and country" who owe them

And I can't really blame scousers for that. They've copped a lot of sh*t over the years. Docks defunct for decades after containerisation, virtually shut down in the 1980s during Thatcher's holy crusade against northerners, lied to about Hillsborough and still unfairly characterised by the rest of the country. They have every reason not to trust the Government. And as far as I'm concerned, the Government has owed the whole country a lot for a very long time.

Now I'm not saying I've never seen a "pure scally". I'm not saying they don't exist. What I am saying is that they aren't representative of the wider whole, just as the little ratbags we've got running about in Southampton don't represent all of us.

Blimey. Most of SWF in agreement (about the principle of people doing "something useful" to earn their benefit payment.)

 

I am equally sceptical though as to the motives of Tesco et al.

Sorry, but I do think these "work experience" programs are exploitative when used for no-mark jobs. How long does it actually take to learn how to put things onto shelves? The weird thing is, when I had that gig, I already knew how to put things on shelves. Weird that. Maybe that's why I got the job.

Ok, ok - it isn't that simple. If you're stacking provisions you have to make sure that you put the stuff that's going out of date soonest nearer to the front. Still, that takes about a minute for a supervisor to explain it to you. I don't see how working in Tesco for nothing for eight weeks adds to their job prospects at all.

If 'we' (society) could prove that the roles these companies are allocating to job seekers are indeed "extra" nice-to-have type tasks that they wouldn't employ someone to do (none such tasks spring to mind) then I would see it as a good thing.

Again, how does working in an easy job enhance their career prospects? The most important lesson in employment is learning how to graft, how to turn it on when you need to. Where's the graft in a nothing job that you don't really want to do? It's a no-win situation. If they do "real" jobs, then someone else is deprived of employment. If they do nothing jobs, all you're really doing is making them tape Jeremy Kyle.

If, however, they are simply replacing 'minimum wage' employees with job seekers then that is at best self defeating and at worst morally wrong.

 

They'll make a socialist out of me yet!

In principle, I don't mind the idea of long term unemployed doing work experience, but the implementation is completely crap. It would be much better if:-

i) the Government gave the claimants benefit to the employer

ii) the employer paid the proper wages to the work experience person

A big part of the "attraction of work" are the rewards you get from it. Sure, some us get paid for doing the things we love ( I absolutely adore being a professional smartarse, for example ) but most people do not love doing crap jobs.

I did crap jobs at that age too. Did I learn much from them? No. Did I enjoy them? Not especially. But I got paid for them, and I enjoyed the increase in lifestyle they were able to give me, after I'd paid my mum a bit of keep, of course.

By all means let giant corporations with vast cash reserves give our listless youngsters an eight week trial. But they should be paid.

Exactly. I think it would be better if they were put to work doing work for the good of the community as a whole - clearing graffiti, fly-tipping and litter for example. I guess the argument would be that there are young people out there that have never worked at all and this at least gives them valuable experience that they may otherwise not get.

Agreed.

 

As the state is paying them, they should work for the benefit of the community, doing work that would otherwise not be done.

They should not be effectively subsidising a private company.

 

I'm sure that small shopkeepers will be delighted that the government is giving their competitors free labour.

Agreed!

If they are being paid by the tax payer, the tax payer should benefit.

Community work for the number of hours equal to their benefits divided by the minimum wage should be the minimum time to give. Making our environment a nicer place to live is beneficial to all of us. It may help build a sense of pride in addition to providing work experience.

If we train them in fire fighting skills, we could use them to cover the firemen when they next decide to go on strike.

I think this sums it up, however you look at it, they aren't working for nothing, they will still get certain benefits.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it”

Dr Robert Smith

Sorry, but I do think these "work experience" programs are exploitative when used for no-mark jobs. How long does it actually take to learn how to put things onto shelves? The weird thing is, when I had that gig, I already knew how to put things on shelves. Weird that. Maybe that's why I got the job.

 

Ok, ok - it isn't that simple. If you're stacking provisions you have to make sure that you put the stuff that's going out of date soonest nearer to the front. Still, that takes about a minute for a supervisor to explain it to you. I don't see how working in Tesco for nothing for eight weeks adds to their job prospects at all.

 

 

 

 

Again, how does working in an easy job enhance their career prospects? The most important lesson in employment is learning how to graft, how to turn it on when you need to. Where's the graft in a nothing job that you don't really want to do? It's a no-win situation. If they do "real" jobs, then someone else is deprived of employment. If they do nothing jobs, all you're really doing is making them tape Jeremy Kyle.

 

 

 

In principle, I don't mind the idea of long term unemployed doing work experience, but the implementation is completely crap. It would be much better if:-

 

i) the Government gave the claimants benefit to the employer

ii) the employer paid the proper wages to the work experience person

 

A big part of the "attraction of work" are the rewards you get from it. Sure, some us get paid for doing the things we love ( I absolutely adore being a professional smartarse, for example ) but most people do not love doing crap jobs.

 

I did crap jobs at that age too. Did I learn much from them? No. Did I enjoy them? Not especially. But I got paid for them, and I enjoyed the increase in lifestyle they were able to give me, after I'd paid my mum a bit of keep, of course.

 

By all means let giant corporations with vast cash reserves give our listless youngsters an eight week trial. But they should be paid.

Pretty much everyone on here agrees that Tesco's shouldn't be using them, but have them put towards things that help and benefit the community as a whole, there are a load of things which they could get involved in.

Nothing wrong with the idea of work for benefits, as long as it doesn't distract from their search for a proper job. I have always been a fan of the alphabet agencies of Roosevelt's America. The CCC is particularly interesting... community work(in forestry I believe), but they got a minimum wage and food and what not. While that couldn't work exactly like that today. A bit of community work(or at least the option of it) for those on benefits wouldn't go amiss.

You learn much more than how to stack shelves. Its all the basics of getting into a working life. The routine of turning up to work on time every day, getting used to working with others, following orders, taking a bit of responsibility and having a bit of a pride in a job well done - habits and behaviours that are useful even if/when one moves on from "crap/dead end jobs" as you put them.

Mate, I completely agree that you can get all of that out of a supermarket job. A lot of my work ethic comes from time served in less illustrious roles. As I said earlier, I didn't enjoy them that much but I absolutely got the point and the benefits of working.

Pretty much everyone on here agrees that Tesco's shouldn't be using them, but have them put towards things that help and benefit the community as a whole, there are a load of things which they could get involved in.

I really agree with the general sentiment, but I'm unsure as to the practicality. I suppose the one positive thing about big companies getting involved is that there is at least a chance that there will be a job at the end of it - a chance to get someone off the Government's books. That's an immediate roadblock to a more community based approach. The other thing is that some of the suggestions on here are already being handled by miscreants in orange jumpsuits. Not sure its entirely fair to dish out similar punishment to people just for being unemployed.

And largely because people like dune and yourself continue to perpetuate the stereotype you picked up from Bread and Harry Enfield

 

That said, there is an element of truth in some of that. While things have got markedly better, the city, like most large cities, has a lot of problems to address. Generally though, it's delineated like any other place - crap areas and good areas.

 

The problem is, when depicting the city, the media has always enjoyed giving the rest of the country something to chuckle about rather than giving a balanced depiction. It'd be like doing a reality show in a rough Southampton council estate and saying "hey kids, this is exactly what Southampton is like".

 

Of course, the other factor is "Merseyside". If a serious crime is committed in Hampshire, no-one automatically thinks "ah, it must be Southampton". However, there's a natural association between Liverpool and Merseyside. People from outside end up equating the two, which is a trifle unfair. There are almost as many people in Merseyside as there are in Hampshire ( 1.5m v 1.7m ). Would you have been happy if the likes of the Paulsgrove riots reflected badly on Southampton? Probably not, but that happens to Liverpool all the time.

 

 

 

 

And I can't really blame scousers for that. They've copped a lot of sh*t over the years. Docks defunct for decades after containerisation, virtually shut down in the 1980s during Thatcher's holy crusade against northerners, lied to about Hillsborough and still unfairly characterised by the rest of the country. They have every reason not to trust the Government. And as far as I'm concerned, the Government has owed the whole country a lot for a very long time.

 

Now I'm not saying I've never seen a "pure scally". I'm not saying they don't exist. What I am saying is that they aren't representative of the wider whole, just as the little ratbags we've got running about in Southampton don't represent all of us.

kind of detracting from the topic here, but no the stereotype is not because of me being influenced by Harry Enfield, i have been to Liverpool plenty of times, and have met scouse lads following England abroad, they take a great pride in the jibbing culture, getting as much as you can without paying for it. tell you what have a read of the book "boys from the mersey" which gives a great insight into Liverpool fans culture of the 70s and 80s but also an insight into the city life. They do feel hard done by, and some of the reasons you have given are fair, but the benefits culture and "being on the sick" is engrained in some of the parts of the city with whole families being signed up for the handouts.

I first went to the city in 1988 for Everton away and have been up there pretty much every year since, i also spent a fair few weekends up there going up with my Fulham mate who decided scouse birds were the best in the world just from their use of fake tan and pronounciation of the word boobs in that accent!

this is a good speech

does anyone know how much benefit money is not claimed ?

There'll always be towns with higher percentages than the average. That's just how averages work.

 

I'm sure many scousers take advantage, I'm sure many do from other cities, but I feel bad for those who truly can't work and need benefits, and get dumped in with the 'workshy scousers' etc tags.

 

Overall I feel worse than countless millions who are in work are doing it purely to survive and wish the days away. All gets a bit cyclical. Work hard, make some money for tesco, buy an iphone, watch x factor, work, kids, work, retirement, gardening, death, kids repeat. Somewhere along the line it's gone a bit tits up.

i see it at work every day, sit next to a woman who does nothing but worry about paying her mortgage, clearly borrowed too much , and they literally do nothing but survive, i think to myself, at the end of all this, what will they look back and think? we have just completely wasted our lives, people think London is a rich place, and it is for some, but an army of normal people earn 20-30k which is barely enough to live on, you just work to live, with your earnings disappearing in rent, travelcard and food and nothing left at the end of it.

Again, it might be true, but for such a large city, stories about such a tiny percentage of the total mean absolutely nothing.

you clearly don't have any experience of the city, have a read of the news article and the 72k people on incapacity benefit.

an army of normal people earn 20-30k which is barely enough to live on, you just work to live, with your earnings disappearing in rent, travelcard and food and nothing left at the end of it.

It's the same in the sticks. People think everyone in the countryside is rich.

Sending out benefit claimants to work for less than minimum wage has been happening for years - I had to do it circa 2006 when I had been claiming for more than 6 months (was out of work, applied to lots of employers, few even bothered getting back to me). I absolutely 100% wanted to work, but lack of previous experience was against me, so the Jobcentre referred me to a recruitment agency. That basically entailed writing off to any local company saying how I would love to join them for a while as experience, in return the JC would carry on paying JSA whilst the agency would take the difference between minimum wage and the wage per hour that JSA basically was. JSA at the time was about £45 a week, so an 8hr shift for 5 days a week so it worked out as £1.12 an hour. And during that time, I was looked down at by the other regular staff at the placement, be made to do all the demeaning jobs, expected to all the errands that had to be done, and more often than not, stay late to clear up.

I had no problem doing the work but the problem I had was the attitude of the business that I was basically cheap labour to be exploited. All the benefits of being employed but at about a fifth of the wage, whilst the rest went to the agency. And my experiences were about standard for all the other claimants at the time. I don't know if that has changed now but it wouldn't surprise me if it hadn't.

Would you gladly do your current job, for a fifth of the wage, and be prepared to put in possibly more effort than you do now?

Wouldn't having them do charity work etc be more beneficial for society than more 'stick them in the private sector' nonsense?

 

What is the age range on this by the way? Does dune qualify?

Totally agree - or removing graffiti, delivering meals on wheels, hospital portering, etc.

i see it at work every day, sit next to a woman who does nothing but worry about paying her mortgage, clearly borrowed too much , and they literally do nothing but survive, i think to myself, at the end of all this, what will they look back and think? we have just completely wasted our lives, people think London is a rich place, and it is for some, but an army of normal people earn 20-30k which is barely enough to live on, you just work to live, with your earnings disappearing in rent, travelcard and food and nothing left at the end of it.

Agreed.

Read a good article somewhere recently about the differences between 2 families with a combined family income of £50k. The family down here were cutting back on holidays, sharing a car, getting rid of pay TV, thinking carefully about what they spend as the income didn't go as far.

Up "north", think they were just outside Newcastle, that family had 3 cars, had exotic holidays, owned a bigger house and were affluent.

£20-£30k in London really doesn't get you very far, at all.

I actually read the article. The woman working in Poundland had a science degree, not only that, she had previous retail experience with a holiday/saturday job. So the argument that 1) it gives people useful experience doesn't apply 2) she might "get a permanent job at the end of her placement" is also a crock 'o ****. For starters the company themselves wouldn't employ her.

Plus it takes literally hours to do application forms, tailor CVs and covering letters for any decent job. Plus it costs to go to work: I can't get over how expensive bus fares are in the UK now, for example. This is just getting people off somebody's list to no useful effect apart from subsiding major employers for simple jobs where no training is involved.

I actually read the article. The woman working in Poundland had a science degree, not only that, she had previous retail experience with a holiday/saturday job. So the argument that 1) it gives people useful experience doesn't apply 2) she might "get a permanent job at the end of her placement" is also a crock 'o ****. For starters the company themselves wouldn't employ her.

 

Plus it takes literally hours to do application forms, tailor CVs and covering letters for any decent job. Plus it costs to go to work: I can't get over how expensive bus fares are in the UK now, for example. This is just getting people off somebody's list to no useful effect apart from subsiding major employers for simple jobs where no training is involved.

Well said. Just read the article – what a load of absolute garbage. I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks that this venture is a good idea is either thick, or they are the owner of a very large business. Perhaps some tories will like the idea of this, but I think if they’re being honest with themselves, they’ll admit that it is just the rich using the poor for free labour (not a million miles away from modern day slavery).

It is a disgrace that the government think they can use OUR naive young people for free labour to butter up the big business owners. If tescos need shelf stackers, then surely that would indicate they need more staff. Therefore, at least have the decency to give them proper jobs, rather than getting them to work for free and fobbing it off as work experience. It’s disgusting.

Another issue I have with it – why are my taxes paying for big booming businesses to employee staff for free?? It’s not as if tescos are struggling in this horrendous economic climate. Is it the case that our taxes are now being used as “bribe” money to rich business owners to keep them on the government’s side? Ridiculous way to run the country!

If we’re looking at the idea of the unemployed doing a bit of genuine “work experience” then I am 100% all for it. For example, how about offering work experience in the public services – a realistic and potentially-fruitful career for a young person who is jobless having just left school/college. As far as I can see it, everyone is a winner in that case. The government would be seen to be actively getting young people into some kind of work, the young people themselves would be given an opportunity to impress and broaden their horizons and the public services (whatever it may be) would get a valuable extra body to help wherever they see fit. There is simply NO benefit to any young person for working, below the minimum wage, stacking shelves at tescos.

If these unemployed people are needed by companies like Tesco, then why don't Tesco actually advertise the position and get some people off the dole properly?

Totally agree - or removing graffiti, delivering meals on wheels, hospital portering, etc.

What would happen to the hospital porter dismissed in order that a benefit claimant could do the job 'for free'?

By all means encourage them to work for charity but don't encourage them to displace an employed person. That would be counter-productive.

And I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea that claimants should 'repay a debt to society', although TBF no-one's actually used that phrase but it has been implied. Most claimants are there through no fault of their own. I bet we all now know a number of people who've been made redundant because of the current economic climate.

I would suggest that people who have lost their jobs, far from repaying a debt to society, are in fact owed because of circumstances beyond their control.

Any of us could be in their shoes tomorrow (well, not me - I'm too old )

Some interesting claims made in this article, Waterstones end unpaid work placements.

1) There are claims that making unemployed people work contravene the Human Rights Act on forced labour. The government is arguing that the employees are not forced to work, just that they lose their benefits if they do. Hmm. So work or starve, basically.

2) Tesco, Sainsbury's, Argos, Asda, Maplin, TK Maxx, Matalan, Primark, Holland & Barrett, Boots, McDonald's and Burger King are all participating, but apparently, specific numbers are hard to come by - much of the hiring is done at a local level so national numbers aren't known.

This is a load of bolox, imo - these people could easily provide numbers if they wanted.

3) There are claims from staff that part-time hours for employed staff have gone down as a result.

A full-time employee at one Holland and Barrett store, who did not want to be identified, said they believed the placements were starting to replace paid work.

"We have had a number of placements in our store and have noticed that the hours for part-time staff have been reduced. Staff are upset because we are all struggling to make ends meet," the employee said.

"The real benefactors of this scheme are the companies who receive millions of pounds worth of labour absolutely free of charge and the losers are the jobseekers who see potential jobs being filled by workfare placements for months at a time and the loyal part-timers who find their regular overtime hours savagely cut."

Doesn't seem so cut and dried now, does it?

I stand by my original statement - this is tantamount to slave labour. It's now looking increasingly clear that it is hurting working people, and oddly enough - people who are trying to get into one of these roles. If we're supplying free unskilled labour to major corporations, what incentive does that provide them to fill these jobs in the usual way?

^^^^^Why am I not surprised at the names of companies participating in this (well, I'm a bit surprised at Sainsburys and Boots actually)I won't be using these companies in future.

Personally i'd rather see the work shy slobs in orange boiler suits litter picking or better still take away their council houses and put them in work houses. It really annoys me how these slobs (whole families of several generations) milk the system. I applaud the Conservative led coalition for doing their best to make their cushy lives miserable.

^^^^^Why am I not surprised at the names of companies participating in this (well, I'm a bit surprised at Sainsburys and Boots actually)I won't be using these companies in future.

Absolutely mental, isn't it?

In establishing and supporting this scheme, the government has effectively moved thousands of real jobs out of the economy.

This is what happens when you play politics for the right side of the public gallery, utterly counterproductive and fundamentally incompatible with what I'd believe would be a popular sentiment on the right wing - i.e. - that you are paid for the work that you do.