Young jobseekers told to work without pay or lose benefits

[Zaune]

The Guardian

Britain's jobless young people 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 (DWP) 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.

In three such cases jobseekers also claim they were not told about the week's cooling-off period, and that once they showed a willingness to take part in the scheme they were told by their case manager they would be stripped of their £53-a-week jobseekers allowance (JSA) if they backed out.

The Guardian has also learned that lawyers are mounting a legal challenge to a separate work experience scheme known as mandatory work activity, which they argue represents a form of slavery under the Human Rights Act (HRA).

Cait Reilly, 22, is completing three weeks at Poundland, working five hours a day. Reilly, who graduated last year with a BSc in geology from Birmingham University, found herself with five other JSA claimants last week stacking and cleaning shelves at Poundland in south Birmingham.

She says there are about 15 other staff at the store but, unlike them, she will receive no remuneration for her work. "It seems we're being used as some free labour, especially in the runup to Christmas."

Reilly says she told her local jobcentre in King's Heath, Birmingham, that she did not need the experience in the store as she had already done plenty of retail work.

Despite DWP rules, Reilly says she was told by the jobcentre that she would lose her benefits if she did not take the Poundland placement. The DWP says jobseekers should be told about the cooling-off period but was unable to comment on individual cases without being given personal details. "I was told [the work experience placement] was mandatory after I'd attended the [retail] open day," she said.

She said she felt she had to do it because "without my JSA, I would literally have nothing".

The work experience programme, which is separate from a multitude of other programmes designed to get people back into work, was advertised in January as voluntary after the time spent volunteering was increased from two to eight weeks.

However, the DWP has clarified that there is a clause which allows jobcentre case workers around the country to force unemployed people into placements. The DWP says that once people "express an interest", including verbal consent, in doing work experience they will lose their JSA if they pull out after their first week into the placement.

One big superstore told the Guardian it thought the entire scheme was voluntary and that people could pull out whenever they wanted without fear of penalty.

Under the scheme, there is no guarantee of a job, only an interview. Multiple jobseekers can work in one store at the same time, cleaning or stacking shelves and competing against each other for a potential offer of paid work.

The DWP has no overall figure for the numbers involved, so it is not known how many hundreds or thousands of young people are working without pay for months.

But including similar schemes such as mandatory work activity, sector-based work academies and the work programme, which is mainly run by private companies, the government expects hundreds of thousands of young people to do weeks of unpaid and forced work experience for big companies.

Figures released on Wednesday reveal that youth unemployment stands at 1.016 million.

As part of her placement Reilly has been given training at another company, which will gives her a City and Guilds qualification in retail.

The DWP says Reilly is likely not to be on the work experience scheme but on another placement called a sector-based work academy, which was announced this October.

The scheme is different from straight work experience in that it has a defined training element, but Reilly says that it was only ever told that she was doing work experience and that her work at King's Heath branch of Poundland has been very unstructured.

"No one really knew what we were supposed to be doing. We were just put on the shop floor and told to tidy shelves," she said.James Rayburn has just spent seven weeks working for Tesco doing, he says, the same work as other paid employees.

He said he had gone to the jobcentre in search of employment, and the manager there had told him that Tesco was looking for staff.

"I thought, that's quite handy because I knew a friend who used to work there and it sounds like quite good fun."

Like Reilly, Rayburn, 21, said that he had little instruction from the store in Warfield, Berkshire. "I didn't actually have much support …They were getting on with their own jobs … they left me to it," he said. "They said, 'Good work today, Joe'. That was it, everyday."

Rayburn, who was also told by his jobcentre he would lose his benefits if he did not work without pay, said he spent almost two months stacking and cleaning shelves and sometimes doing night shifts.

"They said [my JSA] would be cut off if I didn't do it."

Asked if he thought he should have been paid, he said: "I reckon they should have paid me … I was basically doing what a normal member of staff does for Tesco. I had the uniform and I was in the staff canteen. I obviously got access to the food and drinks in the staff canteen … that's what they let you do … but I got nothing else apart from that."

" I was there doing it as if I walked into the store and said, 'Look I'll help'."

In April, Tesco filed pre-tax profits of £3.5bn.

Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement. He was working at Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement.

Other large stores including Sainsbury's, Argos and Asda have been confirmed as providing work experience placements.

Solicitors from Public Interest Lawyers in Birmingham acting on behalf of two clients involved in the mandatory work activity programme have told the Guardian that they are seeking a judicial review of the scheme, arguing their clients were being forced to work against their will, amounting to a breach of their human rights under article 4 (2) of the HRA, which states: "No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."

Jim Duffy from PIL said: "Forcing jobseekers to work for free may benefit big business but does nothing to break the cycle of unemployment and poverty. Instead it amounts to exploitation, decided at the whim of a Jobcentre Plus adviser."

Tesco said 150 people had carried out placements at its stores in the past two months. However, it told the Guardian it was under the impression that work experience placements were totally voluntary.

It said it would not be offering placements over Christmas, adding: "These placements are not a substitute for full-time employees."

Poundland also confirmed the practice but said it did not have exact numbers.

Sainsbury's said: "Following an approach from their local Jobcentre Plus and in the belief that they were doing the right thing, a small number of stores have recruited colleagues under this new initiative.

"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."

The employment minister, Chris Grayling, has defended the scheme, saying: "Our work experience scheme is proving to be a big success with over half of young people leaving benefits after they have completed their placement. It is not mandatory but, once someone agrees to take part, we expect them to turn up or they will have their benefits stopped.

"Work experience will give young people a real taste of the work environment and act as a stepping stone into a career. And it's working.

"Jobcentre Plus is working with major multinationals and smaller businesses to offer thousands of opportunities for young people so that they can start to get on the job experience whilst enabling them to keep their benefits."

Posted without comment, because I'm speechless with rage.

[weemadando]

I fucking love living in heathen communism sometimes. At least Gillard isn't suicidal enough to roll out a program like that.

Abbot though? He'd try. But there's both Federal and State laws to work around. But whaddaya know, he could do it in the NT. Again. Never in the ACT though. Weird that. Must be all those white folks.

Fair Work Australia

Sometimes a new employer will ask you to work for some time without being paid, to see whether you are ‘right’ for the job. This is called unpaid trial work and it is against the law.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

This is nothing short of slavery, and businesses who do this should be disbanded.

[PREDATOR490]

Around Scotland it is A4E and Ingeus the Jobcentre boot people off on MWRAs. Advisor offers you these things and then you do them, you get told if you dont complete them you can get sanctioned and lose benefits.

18 - 24 was called Flexible New Deal that basically had a set routine of what they did with you based on how long you have been employed.
After 6 months they booted you on a course or work experience placement.
Mostly it is Retail, Charity Shop and Voluntary stuff they shove you in and you MUST attend for the full hog which can be somewhere between 4 - 13 weeks.

There was never any promise of employment at the end of these - You were doing a full time job for 'experience' while having to do your normal jobsearch on your own.

Work Trials - You work with an employer for 2 weeks "free" and if they like you they can keep you without any obligation.
However, these placements have resulted in abuse of the system by companies to get cheap labour they dont have to pay for without any obligation or promise of a job at the end of it.

Regardless, the FND has been stopped and changed to a new system called Work Programme. Effectively the same thing expect the organisations they boot people off too to assist in jobsearch / training only get paid if they get people into SUSTAINED employment.

I cant say this system is that bad, my experience has been rather good but I just went with it and kept my head down. I eventually ended up doing an MWRA Admin placement AT A4E watching folks getting put into placements and meeting with advisors to help them get into work. The system has its issues but I dont think its anything to get really angry at.

[Minischoles]

It's one of the stupidest ideas yet from the Tory government concerning benefits (and that's really saying something)

It is basically working for no wages whatsoever. If you're working 30 hours a week for JSA, you're making about £1.80 an hour (3 times less than the National Minimum Wage). It's no wonder that companies want to bring people in, especially now - there's always a big surge over christmas in employment, and thanks to the Tories all these big chain stores get some nice cheap labour. Thanks to that, people who might get employed for proper wages over Christmas, won't be getting a job - why employ someone for the NMW when you can get 3 employees for the same price?

Nobody is getting a job after this placement, nobody. Those stores won't employ them at all after christmas, they'll get an interview and a 'thanks for coming we'll keep your name on file' and they'll be out of work again, until they get placed somewhere else working for cheap. Oh you get some experience - for a job that is already massively over saturated and for which this scheme will likely just keep on going.

[Johonebesus]

What exactly is the £53/week? Is that a general unemployment benefit or is it tied to this program? Does one continue to receive the benefit if the company doesn't give one a job after four weeks? Is there any other unemployment relief, something like food stamps? I suppose for those in the program it's better to work in a store and get a tiny wage from the state than to have no income at all, but I would think giving companies free labor would make unemployment worse. But then it seems like most governments now are doing all they can to slow or prevent economic recovery.

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

The government in Ireland tried this a few years back. They dropped it like a hot rock when they realised that the companies in question, never mind not giving the poor bastards roped into the scheme a job after their work period had passed, were actually using them to replace their full-time employees. (who they were now sacking at a rate of knots)

I love the warped thinking that decides that subsidising the jobless to the tune of £53/week is morally reprehensible and the road to economic ruin, but subsidising multi-billion pound companies to the tune of around £180/week (based on 30 hours of work a week at minimum wage they'd get if they were full-time employees) is a-okay. The tragic thing is that if this scheme was focused on putting people into jobs were they could get actual training and employment (apprenticeships, small businesses, local charities etc) as opposed to simply lining Tesco's coffers it would a damn nice little idea.

[Minischoles]

What exactly is the £53/week? Is that a general unemployment benefit or is it tied to this program? Does one continue to receive the benefit if the company doesn't give one a job after four weeks? Is there any other unemployment relief, something like food stamps? I suppose for those in the program it's better to work in a store and get a tiny wage from the state than to have no income at all, but I would think giving companies free labor would make unemployment worse. But then it seems like most governments now are doing all they can to slow or prevent economic recovery.

It's Jobseeker's Allowance, something you can apply for when you're unemployed, not something that you get paid for being in this scheme. There are some different rates, but for most people involved in this scheme (young people under 25) you get £53/week, which comes with conditions (and can be stopped for a whole host of reasons). That is it for most people coming out of college/University and looking for work and under this scheme you continue to receive your benefits, but you have to work the 30 hours at wherever they place you, without quitting - since quitting means you lose your benefit (probably for a substantial period of time).

[Iroscato]

This has seriously, SERIOUSLY pissed me off. We have a minimum wage for a fucking reason in this country, and if you're doing work, you should get paid at least that. The clue's in the word 'minimum'. How fucking DARE they try to exploit people desperate for work, desperate for money, desperate for a good life.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH.

[Lord Zentei]

This is more about the false promise of pay later (a promise which the businesses apparently are not required to honour), rather than the (non)existence of minimum wages per se. If there were genuine intent to hire them, that might be different, but in that case, what would be the point with this programme in the first place? Either they're going to hire them or not...

And no surprise that they are using this instead of regular workers. I guess people in government haven't read Freakanomics.

What a load of bullshit.

[madd0ct0r]

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

I am so fucking glad I moved to Vietnam, and that's something I didn't think I'd ever say.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Actually, it wouldn't be so bad if it were for a short term, say not to exceed one week, and if it were in a field that the job seeker had had only limited experience in, and intended to pursue for a reasonable career span. Additionally, if there were restrictions on how many such job seekers a company may utilize without pay within a given period of time, there would be less incentive for companies to abuse the situation. But being compelled to work in a job for "experience" that has no bearing on one's professional goal is absurd. The current plan doesn't seem to have any goal except to create a pool of short term slave labor and remove any incentive to actually hire anyone. Why do so many conservatives in countries insist that business friendly policies are necessary to boost employment, but go to such trouble to ensure that any actual incentives to hire are scrupulously removed from such policies? It seems silly, but then I just realized it's because conservative leaders tend to identify with the ownership classes, and see whatever benefits people like them as inherently good. I suppose the real question is how do people let them get away with such transparent self serving?

[Themightytom]

Jim Duffy from PIL said: "Forcing jobseekers to work for free may benefit big business but does nothing to break the cycle of unemployment and poverty. Instead it amounts to exploitation, decided at the whim of a Jobcentre Plus adviser."

What the hell is he talking about? Volunteering when you're out of work does worlds of good. It keeps something current on your resume for one thing, and gives you a networking opportunity however limited to meet people in professional setting and demonstrate your competence. It structures what could be an entirely nebulous day and provides constant tangible incentive to seek other employment.

The US has a similar program, although we're at least smart enough to demand employers put down in writing that participants in the program are filling a position that employers intend to hire for and that they would actually be considered at the end of their work period. They can't even hire anyone for a similar position while they still have participants in the Return to Work Program volunteering. The incentive is that employers have to pay to train new hires who might be coming from other employment, whereas RWP participants are trained at no cost because they are working for free, and at least in MY state, where we believe seat belts are unmanly, the state covers workers comp.

Sure I guarantee employers will try to milk it, and the state will probably fall short of monitoring it appropriately, as they do ALL programs that are over a year old, but to claim that volunteer work does "nothing" to break the cycle of employment and poverty is completely wrong. I can't wait to do my THOUSAND hours of volunteer work in the mental health field in the spring, it's called an internship.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I think the problem is that it is compulsory in order to retain benefits, and is not necessarily in an area that one would wish to gain additional experience (retail anyone?). Additionally, since there is no intent to hire required, the program has been stripped of anything resembling incentive to provide actual hiring. They'd be better off being required to do community service, preferably at something related to the subject in which they majored.

[PainRack]

An internship and etc assumes that somebody actually teaches or grade you. The news article suggest that there isn't no such thing going on.

Its gets even more.... frustrating because for basic retail work, you can't easily translate work experience from one company to another.

[Minischoles]

This isn't volunteering or an internship, it's being forced to work in a minimum wage unskilled/low skilled job for £1.80 an hour, with absolutely no guarantee of being hired at the end and being told that if you quit at any point during the 2 months, you lose the benefits that you're living on. It will do absolutely nothing to break an unemployment cycle, it's doing exactly as the quote says - giving businesses free workers who can't quit.

[Eulogy]

At this rate, they'd have a better chance of living in not poverty if they banded together for a few bank robberies, not to mention this shit encourages disgruntlement.

I would not be surprised if the slaves sold out their masters to gangs or competitors for actual hard cash. Loyalty, the businesses do not have, and this will seriously hurt them in the long run. After all, why not warn people away from slavers?

[Themightytom]

At this rate, they'd have a better chance of living in not poverty if they banded together for a few bank robberies, not to mention this shit encourages disgruntlement.

I would not be surprised if the slaves sold out their masters to gangs or competitors for actual hard cash. Loyalty, the businesses do not have, and this will seriously hurt them in the long run. After all, why not warn people away from slavers?

Yeah, people tend to get that idea over here in the US from time to time. the public in general just can't figure out how someone could become so morally bankrupt that they would turn to a life of crime, let alone start drinking or doing drugs, I'll tell you though, dealers never land in the shelters.

This isn't volunteering or an internship, it's being forced to work in a minimum wage unskilled/low skilled job for £1.80 an hour, with absolutely no guarantee of being hired at the end and being told that if you quit at any point during the 2 months, you lose the benefits that you're living on. It will do absolutely nothing to break an unemployment cycle, it's doing exactly as the quote says - giving businesses free workers who can't quit.

boo hoo, is the compulsory nature of the work affecting what you do there? No. Does the lack of a guarantee of hire affect what you do there, no. You have in no way refuted any of the arguments I made about positioning a person to network, filling a work history gap, structuring a day and providing incentives.

An internship and etc assumes that somebody actually teaches or grade you. The news article suggest that there isn't no such thing going on.

Its gets even more.... frustrating because for basic retail work, you can't easily translate work experience from one company to another.

Um could you elaborate more, maybe this is a regional thing, but retail work in my opinion is the EASIEST work experience to translate. A cashier for example has the cash handling/customer service experience to be a bank teller, a bar tender, a government clerk or any other number of things that involve talking to people while you process an order on a machine.

Your employers teach and grade you, they train on their methods, and provide feedback as to your performance.

I think the problem is that it is compulsory in order to retain benefits, and is not necessarily in an area that one would wish to gain additional experience (retail anyone?). Additionally, since there is no intent to hire required, the program has been stripped of anything resembling incentive to provide actual hiring. They'd be better off being required to do community service, preferably at something related to the subject in which they majored.

That's a valid argument for how to improve the program but it doesn't invalidate even a poor placement. I agree that effective placement is obviously preferable. Is there anything in the article claiming that a person can't CHOOSE or solicit their own job site, or does anyone have first hand knowledge of the program? In the US based programs, both RTW and TANF participants CAN choose where they want to work, they can present the program to the company, they can convince the company to take them on, they can choose their own situation. most don't. Participants do nothing to identify a site, and so administrators assign them to whatever work site they happen to have.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement. He was working at Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement.

Tesco said 150 people had carried out placements at its stores in the past two months. However, it told the Guardian it was under the impression that work experience placements were totally voluntary.

It said it would not be offering placements over Christmas, adding: "These placements are not a substitute for full-time employees."

It seems that lack of communication was a major factor (or at least was claimed). The companies claim not to know that the work was compulsory, and the workers claim not to have been informed that they could have changed placements within the first week. I'm surprised there weren't mandatory standard disclosure forms of some sort to all involved.

[Connor MacLeod]

Something I noticed in the article...

But including similar schemes such as mandatory work activity, sector-based work academies and the work programme, which is mainly run by private companies, the government expects hundreds of thousands of young people to do weeks of unpaid and forced work experience for big companies.

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly, but this sounds as if these "programs" are being run by the private sector (EG other companies), rather than by the government itself.

[PainRack]

Um could you elaborate more, maybe this is a regional thing, but retail work in my opinion is the EASIEST work experience to translate. A cashier for example has the cash handling/customer service experience to be a bank teller, a bar tender, a government clerk or any other number of things that involve talking to people while you process an order on a machine.

The "basic" skills of working as a cashier or etc doesn't translate to other companies easily as each company has their own policies and practices.
I also question how knowledge of knowing how to conduct an ID check on youth buying beer is going to translate into a government clerk or etc.

The simple skill set in learning how to stock shelves, or take a cash order and ring up credit cards/etc is easily mastered on the job. Further job experience will only be beneficial if the company signs you on.

Your employers teach and grade you, they train on their methods, and provide feedback as to your performance.

Again, based on the news article, it seems that this wasn't done. This may very well be the failure of the store itself as frankly, very few companies and insitutions are actually able to deliver on an apprenticeship style training.

[Teebs]

I fail to see the problem with telling people on jobseekers' allowance that they have to work in order to receive their money. On two primary conditions.
1) They effectively work for minimum wage, so in effect that's about 10 hours a week for JSA. It leaves them time to look for jobs too, and it should help deal with accusations of slave labour.
2) They don't work for private sector companies doing things that should be done by paid employees. If you're going to have them do retail, get them to do it in a charity shop, they shouldn't be used as a government subsidy for profit making companies and certainly shouldn't be displacing paid workers.

Obviously you should be careful about not forcing people to travel three hours each way or have to spend large amounts of money to get to the work too.

Edit: Also, this is much more appropriate for the long term unemployed.

[Chirios]

What exactly is the £53/week?

The money you're given for job seekers allowance. Assuming you're in the US it comes to about $70.00 a week.

Is that a general unemployment benefit or is it tied to this program?

The law used to say you had to prove that you'd been looking for a job. The Tories are doing this and saying that if people aren't willing to do this then that means they aren't looking hard enough for a job and therefore shouldn't get benefit.

Does one continue to receive the benefit if the company doesn't give one a job after four weeks?

Yes. This is proof that you're trying to find work, that the company doesn't hire you isn't your fault. The Tories are very big on supply side economics, and believe that this will lead to more hirings, which will lead to more jobs, which will lead to more money, which will lead to people buying things, which will lead to more hirings and repeat.

Is there any other unemployment relief, something like food stamps?

No. The UK doesn't do anything like food stamps. There are ways you can get more money, but generally that requires needing to look after a family.

I suppose for those in the program it's better to work in a store and get a tiny wage from the state than to have no income at all

They aren't getting a tiny wage from the state, this is a precondition for getting unemployment assistance. If they were being told: okay, we'll pay you an extra £30.00 a week if you join this thing and work at these places, that would be getting a wage from the state.

[bobalot]

This idea sounds stupid.

1. It will be giving private companies a financial incentive to hire these 'jobseekers' over actual employees. What is going to stop private companies from sacking actual minimum wage workers and replacing them with these people? If this this practice spreads, it will put pressure on other businesses to adopt similar practices to stay competitive.

2. It doesn't appear to be giving these 'jobseekers' any discernible skills, unlike an unpaid internship.

[Edi]

So, another program for companies to get labor for free for a limited period of time, dump the person at the end of it, get a new one for free, rinse and repeat as long as the program exists. All that will do is make the unemployment and poverty problem worse.

If it's been set up by the private sector, this is precisely what I'd expect. I've had to deal with unscrupulous temp agencies and companies before, except here it isn't quite that bad.