Young jobseekers told to work without pay or lose benefits

[PREDATOR490]

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.

You are, those companies are called Access 4 Employment and Ingeus in Scotland.

Effectively the system goes like this:
1) You sign up for Jobseekers Allowance and get X whatever a week which is actually paid every 2 weeks. £53ish for 18 - 24
2) After X amount of time without finding work you get put onto "Stage 2" which can have a 'training course' be required to update CV or do some basic skills
3) Stage 3 - You get sent to a 'provider' like Ingeus or A4E who then 'take-over' - They find you a work placement possibly where you actually want to gain experience in or just whats available. Usually a Charity organisation rather than a private one.

The placement can be 4 - 13 weeks and you cannot leave once it is started unless you have valid reasons otherwise you lose your £53 a week benefit.
I have seen individuals get these benefits stopped for 6 months but 99% of the time it has been their own fault by not showing up to the placement, unacceptable performance or thinking you can skip days when you feel like.

4) Stage 4 - Once you complete your placement you 'sign-on' at the provider on weekly basis where they supported you by giving you training, access to resources to do jobsearch and find work and check up to make sure your actually doing it properly. Under the FND 18 - 24 system this lasted 1 year, under Work Programme it lasts for 2 years.

Main difference between FND and WP: FND had the DWP pay the provider lots of cash upfront that was used to do stuff with the jobseekers like give them training, get them licenses or put them on courses that would increase chances of employment.
WP - Slashed that completely, the providers dont get paid much at all so no more courses, training or support. They only get paid if they fire you into a job as quickly as possible which is sustainable then they have to spend those 2 years crawling up your ass to check your still in that job and keep you in it.

Stage 5) If you STILL dont have a job then you go back to the Jobcentre and then do the whole process again.

[NecronLord]

Now this is going to make me feel dirty, but I really have to object to the definition of this as "slavery."

Before I go on, let's make it abundantly clear, I do not support this programme, it's exploitative, corrupt and just plain bad. Please keep that in mind over the next few paragraphs.

A slave is not allowed to withdraw their labour from their masters.

People on this programme can still do that. They can leave. They can in fact, say "fuck you all, shove it up your pipe and smoke it you useless reject pieces of shit" and leave at any time they please.

That means they will not get money.

Well, no shit, I can do that at my workplace, too, and they can do that when they're signing at the jobcentre too.

Now I can hear the objection already; this is the unemployment benefit, the last line against total destitution. Yes, it is, but the UK Government has required people to perform certain acts to get the money for as long as I can remember, and indeed, gives out a document explaining what those acts are (looking for jobs, recording the looking for jobs, going to the jobcentre, not being abusive at the jobcentre, being available to take up work, etc etc) to every new claimant.

Now, if forcing people to look for work and go to actually-useful training schemes in order to get their money is not slavery (which I don't think anyone is saying is), then this isn't slavery either. They are not being threatened with violence if they do not work for their pay, they are not being chained to tescos shelves, they are being told to toil in order to get their money.

Yes, they have nothing else, but there is still a difference, they can go any try to arrange something for themselves otherwise. Bad and exploitative, yes. Actual slavery? No more than any other job, or actually making them sign on.

Remember, I do not support this programme, it's exploitative, corrupt and just plain bad.

[NoXion]

Now this is going to make me feel dirty, but I really have to object to the definition of this as "slavery."

Before I go on, let's make it abundantly clear, I do not support this programme, it's exploitative, corrupt and just plain bad. Please keep that in mind over the next few paragraphs.

A slave is not allowed to withdraw their labour from their masters.

People on this programme can still do that. They can leave. They can in fact, say "fuck you all, shove it up your pipe and smoke it you useless reject pieces of shit" and leave at any time they please.

That means they will not get money.

Well, no shit, I can do that at my workplace, too, and they can do that when they're signing at the jobcentre too.

Now I can hear the objection already; this is the unemployment benefit, the last line against total destitution. Yes, it is, but the UK Government has required people to perform certain acts to get the money for as long as I can remember, and indeed, gives out a document explaining what those acts are (looking for jobs, recording the looking for jobs, going to the jobcentre, not being abusive at the jobcentre, being available to take up work, etc etc) to every new claimant.

I think you're equivocating between being required to show evidence of having searched for a job, and actually working for an employer in a productive capacity.

Now, if forcing people to look for work and go to actually-useful training schemes in order to get their money is not slavery (which I don't think anyone is saying is), then this isn't slavery either. They are not being threatened with violence if they do not work for their pay, they are not being chained to tescos shelves, they are being told to toil in order to get their money.

Yes, they have nothing else, but there is still a difference, they can go any try to arrange something for themselves otherwise.

Like what? Not everyone can fall back on the support of friends and family.

[Molyneux]

As far as the United States goes - I seem to recall that when I found my first job, there was paperwork stating something to the effect of "<This company> is required to pay you for every hour you work, so be damned careful when filling out your time sheets because if you leave some hours you worked off of the sheet, that might open us up for liability."

Am I misremembering that? I thought that companies were legally required to pay their employees in the United States.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. In the US, the obligation to pay workers, and to pay overtime, is a federal law that employers are stuck with- Broomstick posted about this some time ago, at length.

In the UK, where this program was enacted, it's another story: there's a different set of labor laws, which give workers different rights and employers different privileges. And there may be loopholes or waivers built into the law that created this program, to get rid of legal obligations the employers would otherwise have to pay their workers the minimum wage.

[DoomSquid]

I've actually been on this programme. I was fortunate enough to have gotten a Christmas temp job at Asda out of it, but I was the only one out of seven jobseekers to get it. I was told that I'd lose my JSA if I withdrew, and there was the implication, although not an outright statement, that it would be looked upon in a negative light if I didn't apply once the option was offered. The application form was a single side of A4 paper that amounted to my name, address, my national insurance number and a confirmation that I wished to apply, nothing more.

As for the job itself, it was 25 hours a week unpaid. They gave us ten quid a week to use the staff canteen, but that was effectively in company scrip; they have a card based system, and it went on our cards, so we couldn't save it and use it elsewhere if we brought in our own lunch, for example. It was pretty crappy, really, although the actual work environment wasn't that bad. Frankly, the biggest problem I have with it is that there isn't a guarantee of a job at the end of it, and that its with big chains.

Essentially, what happens at Asda is that local stores don't really have control over their own hiring; the store we worked at attempted to hire all of us, and the selection system imposed by the head office shot down all the others bar me, and the managers at the actual store couldn't do anything about it. We had to apply as though we didn't have anything to do with the store rather than as a colleague, effectively. If the same scheme was conducted with smaller firms who didn't have similar limitations and for a shorter time (two months of unpaid work is going too far), it'd be a lot better. Two weeks is more than enough time to see if somebody is actually worth hiring, after all.

[Themightytom]

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.

Based on your reasoning, no skill is transferable because all companies have different policies. As this is to functionally evident in the work place, as evidenced by the extensive process of reviewing experience prior to hiring, I would reconsider that position. I think the difficulty you are having here is that you may be taking taking a linear approach to global concepts. A "skill" is a learning capacity, to improve proficiency, while "experience" is a learned conceptual foundation. Your use of the term skill is closer to the term "procedure" and your use of the term "experience" is closer to the term proficiency.

The learning capacity to improve proficiency in conducting an interpersonal exchange, and processing a logical sequential exchange is the "skill" associated with cashiering. You talk to a customer, you determine what they need done, you compare that with how the company you work for wants you to do it, you perform and log the exchange. This is referred to as customer service, and cash handling. Cash handling, and customer service are skills that re prerequisites for bar tending, cashiering and in many cases, positions as a government clerk, though in anticipation of your literal translation of the term cash handling, I should clarify that most government clerks also take checks or credit cards nowadays, whether you are at the DMV getting a license renewed or at city hall trying to get a birth certificate.

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.

A government clerk would need to verify an individual's eligibility to obtain a service the same as a cashier verifies a customer's eligibility to make specific purchases. Eligibility assessment skills employs critical reasoning, and emphasizes linear thinking. You are substituting a procedure for a specific situation with the global skill of eligibility assessment. If you want to successfully transfer skills from one situation to another, you have to take that global perspective, especially if you want to be able to convey that understanding and advocate for it in a job interview.

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.

You assume "experience" to be procedural knowledge, rather than a complex culmination of observed behaviors and conceptual development. The act of placing something on a shelf, does not translate to mastery of a skill set. The learning capacity a person has for a role the more they can improve in it. Have you ever noticed that longstanding employees tend to have a methodology, or habits conducive to completing a task quickly and efficiently that isn't in the employee handbook? Simple steps like using both hands when stocking, positioning stock effectively or developing muscle memory and finite motor control so that a tasks can be performed simultaneously and ultimately autonomously are usually characteristics of experience stocking.

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.

I was drawing an analogy, not proposing a direct occurrence. No report cards, and no classrooms. The "teaching" is the learned behavior you pick up when you are trained by employees, the "grading" is the feedback they give you, either in terms of "Good work" "Do it this way instead" or "You're a complete train wreck, and I can't believe I am about to fire someone working for free, but you literally do more harm than good here."

The last is a true story. I had to fire a volunteer because he was giving stuff away in exchange for favors.

Yes. In the US, the obligation to pay workers, and to pay overtime, is a federal law that employers are stuck with- Broomstick posted about this some time ago, at length.

.

The easy way to sidestep all of that is not to classify someone as an employee. You CAN volunteer for a business, but you CAN'T volunteer for a business where you are employed. that is how TANF gets around having employees pay people doing community service in exchange for benefits. They call them volunteers to destigmatize them.

[weemadando]

Actually, can't you just call someone an intern in the US and exploit them for no pay all you want still? Or have they finally gotten rid of that?

[Themightytom]

Actually, can't you just call someone an intern in the US and exploit them for no pay all you want still? Or have they finally gotten rid of that?

No, that still happens. I had my intern carrying turkey baskets all day

Nah she's getting a degree in social work so interacting with low income populations is kind of why she's here.

[PREDATOR490]

The system could use improvement which I handily saw but it does work. The NEW Programme is extremely shit though by further encouraging A4E and Ingeus to fire people into any job they can do for a sustainable period.

Advisor: You want to do admin work and did a year long admin work experience placement in this very building ?
Me: Yes
Advisor: How about working at a meat factory instead ?
Me: ???

Alternatively:

Me opens letter: You have been invited to the Enterprise Awarness Group at X,Y. Failure to attend will result in loss of your benefits
Me phones up A4E: What the Fuck is this ?
Admin: Uhhh, I dont really know, let me go and find out.... pause.... pause.... hi, noone knows and the person who runs it dosent come in until the day you go to this course. I'll get an advisor to call you back.
I tried asking what the fuck this course was three times over the phone and got the same stupid response with no call back from my advisor. Finally, on the day of this course I find out it's a 'Self-Employment Course' which even the guy running it said he thought it was kinda pointless for some folks to be getting sent to it.

Essentially, the advisor had been off sick and the company is contracted to have contact with you X number of times and do Y stuff with you. Thus they basically sign you up for shit that literally has little relevance to check off the books. I have no objection doing courses that make sense but I know A4E was doing this a lot while I was doing my placement there. They just fire out random letters to people and expect folks to show up so they can write them off the books to or get busted by the DWP if they dont.

[Molyneux]

Yes. In the US, the obligation to pay workers, and to pay overtime, is a federal law that employers are stuck with- Broomstick posted about this some time ago, at length.

OK. That's what I thought, just wanted to make sure.

Actually, can't you just call someone an intern in the US and exploit them for no pay all you want still? Or have they finally gotten rid of that?

I don't know about general cases of this, but for the limited example of academic internships in New York State (at least, I think that it's a state law, not federal), they recently really tightened up the restrictions to try to stop universities and employers from setting up required no-pay or low-pay internship credits in exchange for what is essentially full- or part-time work.

They actually go far enough in restricting it that it's become nearly impossible for a student to opt into what they know full well is going to be an unpaid internship, and are happy about the prospect - I'm speaking from experience there.

(I was on unemployment, about to start graduate-school courses, and a friend-of-a-friend had a software startup that I really wanted to help out at part-time - but I could not work there without losing my unemployment benefits, even if I kept looking for a real job, and with the limitations on academic internships he couldn't even set it up as an internship for me. Somewhat frustrating at the time.)

[Block]

Yes. In the US, the obligation to pay workers, and to pay overtime, is a federal law that employers are stuck with- Broomstick posted about this some time ago, at length.

OK. That's what I thought, just wanted to make sure.

Not if you're a salaried employee in many cases. If you're hourly, yes.

[Jade Falcon]

I was on a couple of these programmes. The first was FND with a company called Microcom. The place was a bit of a joke though the staff inside were okay to get on with. The main problem you had was you had to apply for X number of jobs each day which isn't a hassle in and itself, but the fact there must have been upward of 50+ people doing the jobseeing and to search the jobsites in the building there were about 4 or 5 computers. These were ancient. Now I wasn't expecting gaming rigs, but these didn't even have USB ports, and they were constantly breaking down. Eventually they got newer systems. While I was there I was sent on a 14 week work placement to Oxfam which to be fair I enjoyed, I organised the book section and did numerous other stuff there. However, first I had asked for admin as that's what I know and I got told it wasn't possible due to the Data Protection Act. Half the employers didn't want to know in the town. For instance I asked about PC World and there had been 3 previous potential placements that never bothered turning up there so the company decided not to bother and I couldn't really blame them. Also, we got an extra £30 a fortnight.

The new programme that has been mentioned by PREDATOR490 had also been run by a company called Working Links which no longer have the contract. I even asked them if they would put me through a personal licence as I was applying for bar work and most require you to have that. I was told that would be something to do, but it never amounted to anything.

[Broomstick]

Yes. In the US, the obligation to pay workers, and to pay overtime, is a federal law that employers are stuck with- Broomstick posted about this some time ago, at length.

OK. That's what I thought, just wanted to make sure.

Not if you're a salaried employee in many cases. If you're hourly, yes.

Employers are still obligated to pay salaried workers for their work, however. Yes, they can require hours in excess of 40 per week without overtime, but recent changes in the law have tightened up who can be defined as "salaried" and who can be defined as "hourly" such that a retail drone can't be declared "salaried" to suck more work out of them for the same money. I was working in corporate America when the rules were tightened, it caused a bit of a kerfuffle.