A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant.
Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth as part of the government's Work Programme.
Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, said they had to camp under London Bridge the night before the pageant. They told the Guardian they had to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday.
One young worker said she was on duty between London Bridge and Tower Bridge during the £12m river spectacle of a 1,000-boat flotilla and members of the Royal family sail by . She said that the security firm Close Protection UK, which won a stewarding contract for the jubilee events, gave her a plastic see-through poncho and a high-visibility jacket for protection against the rain.
Close Protection UK confirmed that it was using up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices, who were paid £2.80 an hour, for the three-day event in London. A spokesman said the unpaid work was a trial for paid roles at the Olympics, which it had also won a contract to staff. Unpaid staff were expected to work two days out of the three-day holiday.
The firm said it had spent considerable resources on training and equipment that stewards could keep and that the experience was voluntary and did not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits.
The woman said that people were picked up at Bristol at 11pm on Saturday and arrived in London at 3am on Sunday. "We all got off the coach and we were stranded on the side of the road for 20 minutes until they came back and told us all to follow them," she said. "We followed them under London Bridge and that's where they told us to camp out for the night … It was raining and freezing."
A 30-year-old steward told the Guardian that the conditions under the bridge were "cold and wet and we were told to get our head down [to sleep]". He said that it was impossible to pitch a tent because of the concrete floor.
The woman said they were woken at 5.30am and supplied with boots, combat trousers and polo shirts. She said: "They had told the ladies we were getting ready in a minibus around the corner and I went to the minibus and they had failed to open it so it was locked. I waited around to find someone to unlock it, and all of the other girls were coming down trying to get ready and no one was bothering to come down to unlock [it], so some of us, including me, were getting undressed in public in the freezing cold and rain." The men are understood to have changed under the bridge.
The female steward said that after the royal pageant, the group travelled by tube to a campsite in Theydon Bois, Essex, where some had to pitch their tents in the dark.
She said: "London was supposed to be a nice experience, but they left us in the rain. They couldn't give a crap … No one is supposed to be treated like that, [working] for free. I don't want to be treated where I have to sleep under a bridge and wait for food." The male steward said: "It was the worst experience I've ever had. I've had many a job, and many a bad job, but this one was the worst."
Both stewards said they were originally told they would be paid. But when they got to the coach on Saturday night, they said, they were told that the work would be unpaid and that if they did not accept it they would not be considered for well-paid work at the Olympics.
Molly Prince, managing director of Close Protection UK, said in a statement: "We take the welfare of our staff and apprentices very seriously indeed.
"The staff travelling to the jubilee are completing their training and being assessed on the job for NVQ Level 2 in spectator safety after having completed all the knowledge requirements in the classroom and some previous work experience. It is essential that they are assessed in a live work environment in order to complete their chosen qualifications.
"The nature of festival and event work is such that we often travel sleeping on coaches through the night with an early morning pre-event start – it is the nature of the business … It's hard work and not for the faint-hearted.
"We had staff travel from several locations and some arrived earlier than others at the meeting point, which I believe was London Bridge [pictured left], which was why some had to hang around. This is an unfortunate set of circumstances but not lack of care on the part of CPUK."
The company said it had spent up to £220 on sponsoring security training licences for each participant and that boots and combat trousers cost more than £100.
The charity Tomorrow's People, which set up the placements at Close Protection under the work programme, said it would review the situation, but stressed that unpaid work was valuable and made people more employable. Tomorrow's People is one of eight youth charities that were supported in the Guardian and Observer's Christmas appeal last year.
Abi Levitt, director of development services at the charity, said: "We have been unable to verify the accuracy of the situation with either the people on work experience or the business concerned.
"We will undertake a review of the situation as matter of urgency. Tomorrow's People believes strongly in the value of work experience in helping people to build the skills, confidence and CV they need to get and keep a job and we have an exemplary record going back nearly 30 years for our work with the long-term unemployed."
If this is not rock bottom, I don't know what is. Never mind all this talk about the Tories wanting to turn the clock back to the 1930s, this would have been considered unacceptable in the 1830s!
And what the hell are we supposed to do about it?
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
and if it is i really hope somebody looses their 'valuable paid work' at the Olympics.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
The former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott has written to the home secretary to complain about a security firm that used unpaid jobseekers to steward the Queen's diamond jubilee celebrations in London.
He said he was "deeply concerned" by the revelations, published in the Guardian on Tuesday, that up to 30 unpaid jobseekers on the government's work programme were asked to sleep under London Bridge before the river pageant on Sunday.
He is calling for Theresa May to investigate whether the company has broken the security industry's own employment standards and is urging the government to review the company's contract for the Olympics.
The firm, Close Protection UK (CPUK), has issued "sincere apologies" for what it called the "London Bridge incident", but insisted that it had not been exploiting individuals but providing work experience.
Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth on Saturday before the pageant on Sunday as part of the government's work programme.
(more at the link, but this bit fairly encapsulates it)
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
The only charitable thing I can say for this is that CPUK were incompetent rather than malicious. They seem to have assumed that the workers could sleep on the coaches, without confirming this with the drivers or making alternative arrangements. All in all, a severe cock-up.
That said, the comments on CiF are as unhelpful and overblown as usual.
Hey, looks like that whole "we'll let you do a bunch of work for us free because you can add us to your resume" isn't just something people pull on artists.
Losonti Tokash wrote:... "we'll let you do a bunch of work for us free because you can add us to your resume"...
I'm actually fine with that up to a point -hell, I've entered into such arrangements quite gladly just to have someyhing to do- but we've got no safeguards against companies bringing in jobseekers for a few weeks on a "work trial" and then letting them all go to be replaced with a fresh batch, all on the taxpayer's dime. That's not doing a damn thing to reduce unemployment, and in fact there's rumours of a few places letting people go or reducing their hours in favour of more "work trial" staff.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
As an individual who has been through the old New Deal system AND the new Work Programme for Seven Years Plus I am not surprised and have personnally seen this stuff in Scotland as well.
You get put on a 2 - 4 week trial where the employer gets you to work for them while your being paid via the Jobcentre AND they also get paid money just for letting you be there. Then they turn round and say they dont want you - Insert new worker that does it again.
Result: Employer pays nothing, gets work done for them and can do it repeatedly to avoid ever paying a salary.
In theory, the system is being changed so that Employers CANNOT do this and employers can only do trials if they WILL give you a job at the end of it.
Employer solution: Come up with a bullshit excuse for why the jobseeker person they got in isnt suitable and they still get away with kicking them to the kurb.
Jobseeker Result: Jobcentre then blames you for doing something wrong and stops your benefits because the employer shit canned you unless the Jobseeker is sufficiently savy to prove themselves innocent.
Incidentally, the bit where they say its voluntary: Bullshit.
"Now that you have been unemployed for X and clearly suck balls we want you to do a placement at Y for Z. This would be awesome experience to add to your CV and make you more employable, since your contract terms with the jobcentre is you will do anything to find work... including training, this is the perfect chance."
Suuure... you can say no, then they turn round and accuse you of not doing EVERYTHING you possibly can to find work. Once you agree to it... even if the details change or the employer fucks you around you literally have no way to back out and if you try = Instant loss of benefits for 6 months unless you can prove without a doubt you have been fucked around and its really bad enough to leave.
As for the Managing Director and the company:
High probability they knew damn well what they were doing and didnt give a shit because if anyone bitches or complains = They boot them off and the Jobcentre hands them a new slave that will do as they are told and like it.
If the nature of the job is to sleep on coaches... interesting that THIS time they magically decided to go with the coaches that dont permit this. Sounds to me like the company decided the jobcentre bums werent worth the money and skimped out and are in PR mode. I'm sure the Managing Director would take this in her stride if she was made to sleep under a Bridge and get changed in public... its the nature of the job, right ?
Question: Does the UK have a minimum wage law? If so, can someone give me a short version of it?
While that sort of abuse does sometimes happen on this side of the pond our wage laws make it much more difficult for employers to pull this bullshit on people. On the other hand, I know there are PLENTY of US companies that are salivating at the notion of unpaid labor. I'm just curious in what ways the wage laws in the UK differ so that this is regarded as legal.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote:Question: Does the UK have a minimum wage law? If so, can someone give me a short version of it?
While that sort of abuse does sometimes happen on this side of the pond our wage laws make it much more difficult for employers to pull this bullshit on people. On the other hand, I know there are PLENTY of US companies that are salivating at the notion of unpaid labor. I'm just curious in what ways the wage laws in the UK differ so that this is regarded as legal.
It's not really much more difficult. They just call it an unpaid internship and go after any college student desperate enough for any sort of experience.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Or they just don't pay you anything, period. Most people either don't know how to collect the wages they're owed or figure it's too much hassle. If you do try to get it there's a good chance you'll lose anyway.
The UK minimum wage is £6.08/h for over 21s (lower for younger people). If I remember correctly any internship where you actually do real work for the employers must be paid at minimum wage. However, people at the lower end of the skills spectrum are probably doing the work as part of their Jobseeker's allowance so those rules wouldn't apply. For more skilled people the problem is that people aren't willing to challenge employers because they're too worried about getting blacklisted/finding a job. Personally I wouldn't mind some real enforcement of NMW rules with undercover inspectors for internships.
Your not working for the employer via the Jobcentre Programme thus you cant claim any wages because your still getting benefits. The employers have effectively made a deal with the Jobcentre where you get to do work for them to gain experience while still getting the same benefits.
As the second link clearly points out, you CAN try and claim wages BUT... if you do the Jobcentre class you as working and boot you off benefits. Thus those people that camped under the bridge would get booted off their benefits for those 3 days of benefits then have to go back to the jobcentre to claim benefits again. It can be done but the system is setup in such a way you would fuck yourself royally doing so.
Thus comes the obvious issue where Employers can happily hold up their hands saying they cant pay you because they dont want to affect your benefits while the jobcentre make it harder to reclaim.
Unless you leave a job for reasons they consider valid = your REALLY screwed with a possible sanction of 1 - 6 months if they dont.
3 days worth of pay or lose your benefits for 6 months
Broomstick wrote:Question: Does the UK have a minimum wage law? If so, can someone give me a short version of it?
While that sort of abuse does sometimes happen on this side of the pond our wage laws make it much more difficult for employers to pull this bullshit on people. On the other hand, I know there are PLENTY of US companies that are salivating at the notion of unpaid labor. I'm just curious in what ways the wage laws in the UK differ so that this is regarded as legal.
It's not really much more difficult. They just call it an unpaid internship and go after any college student desperate enough for any sort of experience.
Yes, as I said, it can be done (the other common method is to employ illegal immigrants and simply fail to pay them - although it is possible for the victims in that scheme to go to court to try to get their wages, win or lose they get deported).
However, the rules do somewhat protect people such as myself, who are not in college, as most such internships can't reasonably employ non-students without pay as currently set up.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
PREDATOR490 wrote:As the second link clearly points out, you CAN try and claim wages BUT... if you do the Jobcentre class you as working and boot you off benefits. Thus those people that camped under the bridge would get booted off their benefits for those 3 days of benefits then have to go back to the jobcentre to claim benefits again. It can be done but the system is setup in such a way you would fuck yourself royally doing so.
I think that only applies if you work less than sixteen hours a week and earn over a certain amount; you're supposed to declare it, but you're unlikely to get into trouble if you don't unless you're extremely close to the threshold. Maybe the rules are different for when you're working a placement arranged by the Jobcentre though, I'm not sure.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
So how long before permanently unemployed people start turning to crime to pay the bills? With desperate people being treated like slaves it's only a matter of time before they get too fed up and revolt. I sincerely doubt something like a Reemployment Union would even mitigate this, as demand greatly outstrips supply.
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
Its not just the Jobcentre benefits that get affected. Housing Benefit, Tax Credits, Child Benefit and a lot of others fall like dominos when you start messing around unless you know the system decently to contact the right people and say the right things. Dont do this and you get hit with a sanction for not telling them and you suddenly lost your benefits for however long they decide.
If you turn down work or training
We will stop your Jobseeker’s Allowance if you turn down work or training, or leave it without a good reason. This could happen if you:
• turn down an offer of work or training
• don’t apply for any jobs
• don’t accept a job or training offer
• don’t go to training when you’ve been given a place
• give up a training place
• leave a job without a good reason, or
• lose your training place or job because of the way you behave.
A Jobcentre Plus adviser can explain how long your benefit could be stopped for.
Work Experience placements are classed as training thus you either accept or DWP hammers you for not living up to your contract. From the OP, the last one would be the reason why complaining is a bad idea. Company says if you dont do the shit job you wont get a shot at the actual job = Thus, if you complain and they boot you out the DWP does the same with your benefits because your behaviour cost you the placement. Possibly wont happen to these guys since its become public but behind the scenes at those tiny box desks its another story.
Although the Company has done a nice blackmail option in the second link by saying complaints causing them to lose the contract will force them to sack everybody. So you can either go after them and lose a ton of jobs or leave them alone in the hopes they will actually take on these people after using them as non-paid slaves.
What I want to know is where the hell that company is buying "combat trousers" from that cost them over $150.
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas GALEForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...
The whole work placement system has been set up in the most retarded way possible and is ludicrously skewed towards businesses and completely and utterly fucks over the unemployed people - no wonder the Tories love it, they get to suck business cock at the same time as whipping poor people.
The same sort of system was being abused over the christmas period by almost any business that recruits seasonal workers - instead of actually recruiting people, they just used this system, getting themselves a nice free pool of labour, with workers that can't possibly risk causing any fuss and getting fired or quitting.
While the UK does have quite strict minimum wage laws, there are a couple of ways businesses can get around having to pay it to their workers. This whole situation shows one of them, the entire work placement scheme is being absolutely abused by businesses to get essentially free labour - they don't have to pay the workers, since the government keeps giving them benefits while they're doing work training and they can't risk going off it and seeking wages. And there is absolutely no guarantee the place you work has to give you a job at the end, all they have to do is give an interview.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. “
- James Nicoll
Mr. Coffee wrote:What I want to know is where the hell that company is buying "combat trousers" from that cost them over $150.
Now you mention it, it's not at all clear whether they meant $150 each or $150 for all eighty pairs. I suspect the latter; they probably buy them in bulk from some wholesale outfit. On the other hand, the next administration we elect that can tell the difference between buzzword-compliance and actual competence will be the first in my lifetime, so who knows?
"Combat trousers" is the British English term for cargo pants, by the way.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
