Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Workfare steward the Jubilee

If it is they appear to be associated with the University of Salford.

From earlier information it seems the link is of the 'business incubation' variety. Depending on the sector, people and establishment in question such relations can be quite deep, e.g. floating off a bit of research into a profitable product. But in other cases its probably little more than getting some cheap office space and use of some shared facilities such as photocopier, network infrastructure etc.
 
Steve-Bell-06.06.2012-002.jpg


Steve tells it how it is...
 
Ten Pints Prescott versus Molly 'Time Please' Prince - so where are Tomorrow's People in this, the shady bent promoters making a deal with some equally shady agents in a smoky back room?
 
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.
:rolleyes:


http://www.tomorrows-people.org.uk/

I think we should be applauding these noble and charitable acts that emerge from the Work Programme. I mean, it surely must be the case that doing unpaid work 'makes a person more employable'. It's innovative thinking such as this that the coalition are never shy to embrace.

As an aside, the other day I heard this crazy rumour that doing paid work actually makes your employed. :eek: I know. I couldn't believe it myself, and as a result i have promptly written a letter to Dave and Gideon. I feel they will be inspired by this radical notion, and possibly implement some sort of scheme. These are exciting times indeed.
 
I don't have a problem with people undertaking unpaid work.

But a) it should be through their own goodwill and choice and b) not be performed against the back drop of fuck all paid work available with promises of will-it-materialise paid work at the end of it. And anyone reaping a financial benefit from such an arrangement should at least be providing adequate facilities and accommodation. :mad:
 
No safety gear, no protective equipment of any kind (illegal?), uses his own gardening gloves, no supervision, had to provide his own saw, suggested he get the bus, an hour and three quarters, then a five mile walk just to get to where he's supposed to work. The owner of the forest thinks the work is worth £12 per day. Definitely looks like slave labour to anyone with an ounce of concern for those expected to carry out this "mandatory work activity". Provider: 'Working Links'.

 
Indeed. Facebook (where I came across this video) etc is not just for "kids", as some on here have asserted in their delusional, elitist bollocks.
 
I think we should be applauding these noble and charitable acts that emerge from the Work Programme. I mean, it surely must be the case that doing unpaid work 'makes a person more employable'. It's innovative thinking such as this that the coalition are never shy to embrace.

are you quoting the BBC take on it?

:p
 
It was added after people had commented on its absence.
Yes I know - when I first looked yesterday evening it was on the front page of news, subsequently they appeared to bury it obviously hoping it would go away or get lost in the post-jubilee stuff.
 
I can't remember whether anyone else has said this on the thread.
The explanation given upthread that the 'volunteers' were allowed to keep clobber to the tune of 100 groat: does that not constitute staff having to pay for their own uniform/workgear? Which I thought is illegal?
It's still standard practice with most agencies - you don't 'have' to pay for it, but if you don't own similar standard gear yourself you can't work. Clearly charging £100 for boots and a pair of combats is pushing it a bit though.
 
Safety boots cost £25 and combats, about £20 ish so charging people £100 is blatantly taking the piss. Especially if you dont pay anybody any wages. :mad:
 
Slapheaded slimeball Chris Grayling's contrubution to the discussion about the callous treatment of the Work Programme/Apprenticeship conscripts from Bristol/Plymouth:

"In a statement, Mr Grayling said: "The Work Programme is about giving people, who have often been out of the workplace for a long time, the chance to develop the skills they need to get into sustainable jobs. We think it's better to train people for the available jobs instead of leaving them on long-term benefits, as happened in the past.

"These jobseekers were doing a short-term placement as part of a training course, with the aim of this leading to qualifications and jobs in the security sector.""

Source:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ced-to-sleep-under-london-bridge-7817755.html

Well, thanks for explaining (or even attempting to excuse) the exploitation of young unemployed people, with a statement that states the blindingly obvious and misses the fucking point entirely you mendacious blowhard Grayling.

Maybe sleeping under London Bridge was training for the destitution and homelessness that may follow any sanctions swiftly and efficiently imposed by the DWP for failing to complete the shonky "opportunities" offered by the Jobcentre.
 
BBC presenter on R4 saying it was voluntary, but Kevin Rawlinson (indy journo) tweeted these last night:

https://twitter.com/KevinJRawlinson/status/210113907157774336 and https://twitter.com/KevinJRawlinson/status/210114305130106880

One I spoke to today said she was told #workfare was mandatory and she'd lose benefit payments if she refused to join up.

Prescott was pretty decent (shame labour started all this) but tbh I think Molly has done well and a lot of people will have listened to that and thought the story was a bit of a storm in a teacup.
 
BBC presenter on R4 saying it was voluntary, but Kevin Rawlinson (indy journo) tweeted these last night:

https://twitter.com/KevinJRawlinson/status/210113907157774336 and https://twitter.com/KevinJRawlinson/status/210114305130106880



Prescott was pretty decent (shame labour started all this) but tbh I think Molly has done well and a lot of people will have listened to that and thought the story was a bit of a storm in a teacup.
I caught that bit. IMHO it would have been an impressive bit of stonewalling if Molly actually had any excuse whatsoever for what happened. As it is, it sounded like a prime example of abysmal management & communication at best, and an organisational mindset of "these people deserve to be exploited" at worst.
 
On Beeb news this morning, Company are 'apologising for logistical error'. Correct course of action would be to give those affected £200 or so compo each, but I guess if they are on benefits then this would be stopped from their money. :(
 
I caught that bit. IMHO it would have been an impressive bit of stonewalling if Molly actually had any excuse whatsoever for what happened. As it is, it sounded like a prime example of abysmal management & communication at best, and an organisational mindset of "these people deserve to be exploited" at worst.

to our minds yeah, but she palmed off the biggest errors on other people (coach company said we'd arrive 2 hours later, the employee on the bus should not have let it go) whilst accepting that it was their (though not her) mistake and "logistical errors" and that lessons were learnt and wouldn't be repeated.
She painted the complainants as a couple of troublemakers who chose to camp outside in the rain rather than be in under cover accomodation because the accomodation was communal and that they knew that before they agreed to go, and that there were over 200 people there and no-one else complained

No challenge asking whether communal accomodation was suitable at all from the presenter, who'd earlier stated that going was voluntary.

He also didn't press her on the changing facilities, she first said they were supposed to change on the coach but then said they were supposed to change on minibuses that were bringing their kit, but didn't explain why they didn't get changed on the minibuses.

I think a lot of people will come away from hearing that thinking that it was bad and everything but it's not as bad as it's being made out and it's just a couple of troublemakers.

Hopefully more people will come forward, and if she told any outright lies then perhaps others will speak up to expose them.
 
BBC presenter on R4 saying it was voluntary, but Kevin Rawlinson (indy journo) tweeted these last night:

https://twitter.com/KevinJRawlinson/status/210113907157774336 and https://twitter.com/KevinJRawlinson/status/210114305130106880



Prescott was pretty decent (shame labour started all this) but tbh I think Molly has done well and a lot of people will have listened to that and thought the story was a bit of a storm in a teacup.


Prescott threw a verbal handgrade into the affair on BBC news earlier, very very robust, almost old labour, it shows the power of an intervention on welfare from LP politicians and indeed highlights the abscence of such from the front bench...
 
Back
Top Bottom