Is Slavery acceptable?
Yes, I gave up my job to work for nothing the rest of my life
13.2% (10)
13.2% (10)
No, slavery is wrong as people aren't born to work for the wealthy few
86.8% (66)
86.8% (66)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Politicians fight for Slavery to be Acceptable for Graduates

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21490542

That is just disgusting... actually fighting for slavery?

Everything this guy says is wrong, terry leahy did not start from stacking shelves unpaid, he was paid! that's the important detail left out

Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see the big deal? She gets money through JSA, and in return does a bit of voluntary work that allows her to add work experience to her CV.

I remember there being a thread about this scheme before where the OP compared it to slavery, then it turned out that the majority of people supported it and it had high success rates.

Lethos:
She gets money through JSA, and in return does a bit of voluntary work that allows her to add work experience to her CV.

Read the article again. She was already doing voluntary work, she actually had to quit it in order to do a pathetic two week placement.

Some forms of work have incredibly high requirements in terms of unpaid work and internships. Museum workers generally have to work a good couple of years with no pay in order to get enough experience to make them eligible for a paid position. Taking her out of that so that she can stack shelves is completely pointless and actually very damaging to her career because it interrupted the voluntary work which may actually get her a job in her chosen field one day.

She's also now working part time at another supermarket, so IDS's complaint about "certain people" feeling they're too good to do so is completely irrelevant.

If IDS genuinely sees JSA as a "wage", he needs to raise it considerably. It's not legal to pay someone to work full time on less than minimum wage. This is a pathetic attempt to try and get around minimum wage laws, and the only beneficiaries are the companies who get free labor out of it, conveniently at the expense of those who actually work.

Moreover, this man lives for free in a 2 million house funded entirely by the taxpayer from his six figure salary. He got his wife a job as his "diary secretary", earning her another 15,000 a year of taxpayers money (incidentally the only time in their marriage she's actually worked). He's claimed millions from the taxpayer, and he's never stacked shelves in his life.

Put him on 71 a week, and I guarantee the worthless fucker would top himself within a month (and the world would be a better place for it).

I'd support these mandatory back-to-work placements if they paid minimum wage (or more accurately, if the hours worked compared to JSA given equated to to earning minimum wage). I suspect that they don't. Expecting somebody to work for under minimum wage is exploitation - maybe not exactly slavery, but still something we shouldn't allow.

Ditto on minimum wage. Frankly I think that the geologists that he's talking about are doing far more work than hes. I don't know what's worse the anti-intellectualism or the exploitation.

Lethos:
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see the big deal? She gets money through JSA, and in return does a bit of voluntary work that allows her to add work experience to her CV.

I remember there being a thread about this scheme before where the OP compared it to slavery, then it turned out that the majority of people supported it and it had high success rates.

First you should find out what JSA stands for

She was slaving for a profitable private business, I refuse to call that man by a name until he proves he has done slave labour for a private business for at least 10 years after giving all his inherited money away & moves into a council house in a run-down estate, he will just be "shit" until then

Funny, that shit didn't even say the slavery worked for a majority...

This falls under the definition of forced labour under international law. That...thing is breaking British, European and international law, and I'm finding it difficult to put into words the amount of disgust and contempt I'm feeling for him right now. He is complete scum, and doesn't even deserve to be called a man.

evilthecat:

Lethos:
She gets money through JSA, and in return does a bit of voluntary work that allows her to add work experience to her CV.

Read the article again. She was already doing voluntary work, she actually had to quit it in order to do a pathetic two week placement.

Taking her out of her voluntary work to put her in another position of voluntary work was obviously stupid, she should of been able to stay in her placement there. I'd also agree about raising JSA to minimum wage.

Other than that though, I don't have too much against the scheme.

I'm confused why would any grad student apply to work anywhere unrelated to their field "for the job experience". I mean being a graduate student is like having a full time job that doesn't end until your dissertation is finished. You research, you take classes, and you have to work with other grad students and professors. That kind of experience should outweigh anything on your resume, hell I wonder if it's even worth putting my menial labor jobs on my resume.

I've been put on one of these back-to-work placements before. They call them "sector-based work academies", and can last for ages. A friend of mine was on one for fourteen weeks.

That's fourteen weeks working full-time without pay, and they expect you to drop voluntary things to do it. They expect you to do exactly what employees do, and in my experience at least, offer no training whatsoever: simply drop you into it. The only difference from actual work is that they give you so much less than minimum wage (through JSA), and it's useless for a C.V.

I started an internship I'd found myself, and the Jobcentre people kicked up an incredible fuss about it, because they'd wanted me elsewhere (at a chain retail outlet).

dmase:
I'm confused why would any grad student apply to work anywhere unrelated to their field "for the job experience". I mean being a graduate student is like having a full time job that doesn't end until your dissertation is finished. You research, you take classes, and you have to work with other grad students and professors. That kind of experience should outweigh anything on your resume, hell I wonder if it's even worth putting my menial labor jobs on my resume.

My degree counts for very little for entry-level positions.

The hyperbolic nature of this thread annoys me. Slavery is being kept in a dark room thousands of miles from home because you were fooled into think that there was paid work waiting. Slavery is being beaten for not working hard enough, or because your owner felt like it. Slavery is starvation, isolation, humiliation and most importantly, there is no way out for you. You cannot decide to change career paths or take something lower paying, you can't move to greener pastures and you can't escape.

People under this scheme are already being paid by the government, their not being paid twice for doing one lot of work is not slavery and daring to call it such is a fucking insult to those who actually suffer it. I will agree that the government needs to provide a safety net for people, but it does not need to support them in whatever endeavours that they choose. If she wanted to be a geologist and could not find paid work for it, it is not the government's responsibility to pay for that lifestyle.

If she were a slave, she would not have the option of ceasing to accept the benefits and pursuing her own employment.

Also, terrible poll is terrible.

Overall, this is a bad thread.

Silvanus:

I started an internship I'd found myself, and the Jobcentre people kicked up an incredible fuss about it, because they'd wanted me elsewhere (at a chain retail outlet).

dmase:
I'm confused why would any grad student apply to work anywhere unrelated to their field "for the job experience". I mean being a graduate student is like having a full time job that doesn't end until your dissertation is finished. You research, you take classes, and you have to work with other grad students and professors. That kind of experience should outweigh anything on your resume, hell I wonder if it's even worth putting my menial labor jobs on my resume.

My degree counts for very little for entry-level positions.

Well even if your degree is a masters in philosophy I don't see how working at a chain retail store "looks good" on your resume. I mean if you manage to get through graduate school you have someone that can attest to your work ethic as well as your knowledge in subject matter. If they where getting you to do IT work or something semi-substantial it's seems worth it but in reality it does absolutely nothing for your resume... wouldn't you agree?

dmase:

Well even if your degree is a masters in philosophy I don't see how working at a chain retail store "looks good" on your resume. I mean if you manage to get through graduate school you have someone that can attest to your work ethic as well as your knowledge in subject matter. If they where getting you to do IT work or something semi-substantial it's seems worth it but in reality it does absolutely nothing for your resume... wouldn't you agree?

Oh! Absolutely. I think I may have misunderstood you. I would never volunteer for the kind of things they put me on, precisely because it's all useless for what I want to do. My own volunteer work (which I was in danger of losing) was far more useful and substantial, at the local Borough council.

Is there anybody here who can explain all of this to a poor ignorant American in a relatively objective manner? I'm a bit confused. What I've gathered so far is the system in question is sort of like the unemployment office in the UK, and then there's something about jobseeker's allowance and "placement." I'm seeing a lot of comments on how the systems end up working in reality, but I don't quite understand how they're structured and how they are intended to work in the first place.

I think this says more about how broken this program is than how corrupt the "wealthy few" are, but sure, I'll bite. She never should have been forced to give up her very useful internship for an absolutely useless job stacking shelves. This being said by a man currently itching to be stacking shelves. It has nothing to do with how worthwhile stacking shelves is and instead everything to do with how damn important her internship is. Anyone too dumb to see that doesn't deserve re-election.

Edit- as I am an ignorant American I would apreciate a more thorough explanation of just what this program is too.

Lilani:
Is there anybody here who can explain all of this to a poor ignorant American in a relatively objective manner? I'm a bit confused. What I've gathered so far is the system in question is sort of like the unemployment office in the UK, and then there's something about jobseeker's allowance and "placement." I'm seeing a lot of comments on how the systems end up working in reality, but I don't quite understand how they're structured and how they are intended to work in the first place.

Basically, an unemployed young woman who is studying Geology was claiming Job Seekers allowance, which I believe to be the sum of 51. However, she was volunteering at a museum for several hours a week in order to garner a little bit of experience in the sector that she wants to go in to. Problem is is that the Job Centre + has a scheme where they put you on volunteer work, otherwise you can't claim your JSA. She had to leave the relevant volunteer work (that she found for herself, by herself) to work for what amounted to around 1.51 or so in Poundland, for regular hours, for two weeks. So she was doing the same work as her "colleagues", but earning around 5 an hour less than them. Poundland is not something she needed on her CV (as a museum job often requires around 2 years of volunteer work before you can get a paid job), and she wasn't offered and never received any training anyway. Essentially, it amounts to her working for 5 under the minimum wage in a Job that she had no training for anyway.

This is all part of the government's Back to Work scheme, which is horribly flawed in almost every way. Normally people (who may not enjoy them) are thankful for these work placements, as it garners experience for them. The problem here is that she had to leave more relevant volunteer work that she found for herself with no help from JC+ in order to work in Poundland for two weeks, otherwise she wouldn't be given the money which she uses to buy food.

Everyone else is angry because people like myself and Revnak up there are quite eager to find a job stacking shelves right now, and would quite happily settle for that, but Poundland and various other companies who take part in the Bak2Werk Scheme take advantage of people like that poor young woman, who only wanted her 51.

Lilani:
snip

JSA is the UK's main unemployment benefit. It's a fairly small stipend paid to people who register themselves as unemployed.

Basically, the government introduced a scheme whereby people on JSA can be assigned to work experience placements (short term unpaid contracts to work for an employer or company) in exchange for receipt of benefits. The idea is that this will help people who have little experience on their CVs to find work in the future.

The legal battle at the moment is over regulation. Basically, some schemes which have been put forward have not complied with the law which instituted them.

Uhm, why is the topic title completely unrelated to the issue mentioned in the news article? Did something go wrong while posting the topic OP?

BlackStar42:
This falls under the definition of forced labour under international law.

Uh, no. That always was a rather far fetched thing to say, but a guy from Rotterdam with an HBO level legal education was actually obligated to do work in exchange for his benefits several years ago. Must've been prior to 2006 for certain because I remember picking up on talk of the case while in the legal studies, which I only did for half a year).
He took it to court, lost. Appealed, lost. Went to the supreme court, they refused to hear the case. Petitioned the EU court, and they refused to hear the case.

If the court even refuses to hear the case, it means it shares the opinion of the national court whose decision was being contested completely. Since the Dutch court ruled that making accepting job offers a requirement to keep benefits over a long period of time was perfectly acceptable, that would be how it would end up for a British case as well, unless a British court ruled differently, and the state doesn't appeal, but they'd be mad not to do that considering they already have it in the pocket.

And as you can see in the news article, the court also did that already: "the judges had decided her argument that the scheme breached her human rights was "rubbish". " The state lost the case because the regulations for the specific scheme were too vague, not because the schemes are overall illegal.

Quite simply it boils down to that there's no human right to 'free money', to requiring people to decide between benefits and doing nothing at some point, is perfectly acceptable. Also the fact that you can choose to lose benefits and not work makes her case even weaker, and the fact that they don't impose it on day 1, but start doing it when someone can't find work by themselves

Also, the state can found it's position on an observed phenomenon, which is that people out of work for a long time, have a harder time finding a job. So the mandatory job in exchanged for keeping benefits is in fact helping people, even if they don't like it.

Just wanting to make this completely clear. So, the program works such that if somebody finds volunteer work of their own that it cannot replace the regular volunteer work, and if they refuse then they lose all benefits?

Edit- misread the article so I editted out a sentence.

Seems like a decent idea perverted into something meant to wholly benefit companies at the expense of those it's supposed to aid. I wouldn't call it slavery, but it certainly is wretched.

Revnak:
Just wanting to make this completely clear. So, the program works such that if somebody finds volunteer work of their own that it cannot replace the regular volunteer work, and if they refuse then they lose all benefits? Because if so, that is a fairly clear human rights violation, and considering that was the court's ruling, I'm inclined to think my assumption is right here.

JSA is not really volunteer work, you're not helping kids learn how to read or any thing like that, private companies get access to those employees in most cases you'll be stacking shelves at night at Tesco rather than doing something actually worth while... JSA pays something like 60GBP a week which is laughable especially if you live in London or any other major city, that wont even feed you. Minimum wage is around 290 a week which is also too low even to afford rent in most places..
Honestly I've paid taxes in 3 countries, the UK is the first country where i feel it's a scam(not to mention that i got a big nice no recursion to public funds on my visa, and still pay over 500GBP in "National Insurance").
This is the first time where I've seen a country which does not provide unemployment benefits equal to minimum wage..

Verbatim:

Revnak:
Just wanting to make this completely clear. So, the program works such that if somebody finds volunteer work of their own that it cannot replace the regular volunteer work, and if they refuse then they lose all benefits? Because if so, that is a fairly clear human rights violation, and considering that was the court's ruling, I'm inclined to think my assumption is right here.

JSA is not really volunteer work, you're not helping kids learn how to read or any thing like that, private companies get access to those employees in most cases you'll be stacking shelves at night at Tesco rather than doing something actually worth while... JSA pays something like 60GBP a week which is laughable especially if you live in London or any other major city, that wont even feed you. Minimum wage is around 290 a week which is also too low even to afford rent in most places..
Honestly I've paid taxes in 3 countries, the UK is the first country where i feel it's a scam(not to mention that i got a big nice no recursion to public funds on my visa, and still pay over 500GBP in "National Insurance").
This is the first time where I've seen a country which does not provide unemployment benefits equal to minimum wage..

Oh I understand that. I suppose I should have called it an internship. It just seems odd to me that they're willing to force people to give up internships in order to do... an internship. A useless one at that. From what I read on Wikipedia, they rarely even get hired for their efforts for those two weeks, the companies see them as completely disposable labor.
The US averages benefits of about 300$, which is just barely above a 40 hour week's payments on the federal minimum wage, but many states have higher minimum wages and that's just the average so many people get less. Then again, in the US you aren't forced to work full-time to maintain benefits.

Blablahb:
Also, the state can found it's position on an observed phenomenon, which is that people out of work for a long time, have a harder time finding a job. So the mandatory job in exchanged for keeping benefits is in fact helping people, even if they don't like it.

You know what else makes it hard to find a job?

When companies don't need to hire you because they can get free labor as long as someone is unemployed.

You know, I actually registered a CV with Poundland back when I was unemployed myself, I still haven't seen a single entry level retail job advertised there in the last couple of years. Fact is, they don't need to hire staff because they can get them for free.

You should not be able to run a shop where you don't pay 80% of your workforce. That's, to put it mildly, really fucking dumb and it just takes jobs out of the economy so that a multi-million dollar business can save on labor costs.

If the government is so determined to keep people active, it should give them an actual fucking job, or training, or something which isn't just paying them below minimum wage to take someone else's job.

It's an indefensible system which could not possibly make sense to anyone who understands how an economy works. Sadly, the Tories don't fall into this camp.

evilthecat:
You know what else makes it hard to find a job?
When companies don't need to hire you because they can get free labor as long as someone is unemployed.

Probably if it happens on too large a scale, but it's not an argument you can use in a court.

evilthecat:
You know, I actually registered a CV with Poundland back when I was unemployed myself, I still haven't seen a single entry level retail job advertised there in the last couple of years. Fact is, they don't need to hire staff because they can get them for free.

Are you sure that's the case? because I've never seen such job ads either, but that's because they get filled through social networks of employees, or by setting up a sign "employees wanted". This is a more likely explanation, also get minimum wage uneducated retail work doesn't allow for much commuting. It doesn't make sense to advertise anything above the small local level.

Especially considering the outlandish claims made by the radical left about conspiracies by freemasons (or was it aliens this time? I forget) to exploit the workers, care should be taken when looking at such things. All I know on the subject is that the Dutch experiments with this were a succes. The majority of people who were helped to employment with such a compulsory scheme got offered a contact and worked there for at least a year. Not just that, but the initial claims in sensationalist media that went "Experienced lawyer forced to clean toilets!!" proved out to be untrue.

Pretty much the only highly qualified people who can expect run-ins with such regulations are people with degrees that are weak in the labour market, but have a very high standard of only accepting specific study-related work. If you respond to every job you're capable of doing, there's no way a university grad is unemployed for long; on the professions that don't require specific degrees, they're top of the food chain.

When last I looked, "slavery" wasn't something you could just quit if you won the lottery.

If you are receiving benefits from the state, then the state can reasonably wield the same authority over you a private employer could. Which include reassignment. It is of course foolish to disrupt an academic's volunteer work[1] if such is the best way to paid employment, which apparently the courts agreed with. One wonders just how (mis)representative that particular situation is for the totality of how this regulation is applied though?

Let's instead try to discuss it from another example: Mark is an ex-con who've just been released from a 30 year prison sentence from raping a small child, before setting it aflame. Aside from his military training, he has no education and no employer will hire him, so he goes on unemployment benefits. Mark's old friend, seeing the potential of a trained military ex-con, gets him a voluntary position as bartender in the hangout of a local biker gang - the SS Death Angels. A crafty social worker, not wanting Mark to hang around with the wrong crowd, reassigns him to stocking shelves at a local supermarket: Certainly this regulation was a godsend!

Or, maybe a more nuanced view could be taken, in which the regulation need adjustment to be more efficient and in line with its stated purpose, but no civil war need to be fought over emancipating people from it.

On a side note, I expect there to be a significant risk of me becoming an unemployed academic for a longer period of time in the current situation. And if the job center wish to reassign me to street sweeping to earn my keep, rather than sitting at home, such is reasonable enough. Nothing is free, not even - or, actually, especially not - from the state. In fact, it's probably the only way I can keep a shred of pride, being a active asset rather than a passive client.

[1] Also, why isn't the same hyperbole about "slavery" applied to a de facto requirement of years of unpaid internship/volunteer work before being eligible for a paid position?

evilthecat:

Blablahb:
Also, the state can found it's position on an observed phenomenon, which is that people out of work for a long time, have a harder time finding a job. So the mandatory job in exchanged for keeping benefits is in fact helping people, even if they don't like it.

You know what else makes it hard to find a job?

When companies don't need to hire you because they can get free labor as long as someone is unemployed.

Yep, which is one of the biggest problems that can be caused by poorly designed/implemented 'workfare' (work in return for welfare) schemes.

Dropping a large pool of short term free labour in the unskilled labour market is a disaster for employment prospects in industries that use unskilled labour and where high employee turnover has negligible negative impact. Very few businesses that can handle high employee turn over rates will look for permanent, paid employees if they have access to a steady stream of workers they don't have to pay.

That's the primary reason that Australia's Work For The Dole 'workfare' scheme doesn't involve private businesses (except in certain circumstances for agricultural concerns that meet the criteria for DroughtForce). No Australian government wants to have an unemployment spike caused by businesses that primarily use unskilled labour and/or casual labour (where Australia hides a significant chunk of unemployment statistics) caused by ready access to unpaid labour.

Blablahb:
Pretty much the only highly qualified people who can expect run-ins with such regulations are people with degrees that are weak in the labour market, but have a very high standard of only accepting specific study-related work.

Yup, that's a big issue with Law graduates here in Australia at the moment. We're churning out more baby lawyers than we need and because they need X number of hrs (I can't remember how many) of legal practice under an experienced lawyer before they can hang up their own shingle and practice solo there's a huge log jam. Many find themselves a part-time job that pays well enough to live on and volunteer at some legal practice to rack up their hours, others manage to translate their law degree into a job in a related (or unrelated) field and the unlucky ones end up on the dole and the govt farms them out to various community legal services outfits as their Work For The Dole obligation... but that ususally helps rack up their qualification hours as well so it's not a total loss for them.

I'm sorry but what is so complicated about this? If you work you're entitled to and should expect to receive the minimum wage, as is every worker's right to ensure they can actually live. So what is the difference between someone actually employed at Poundland who stacks shelves and receives the minimum wage, and someone on the scheme who does exactly the same job, is their labour somehow just worth less? This is just simply another way for a Tory government to cater to large business whilst simultaneously shafting lower class people; simply put same old Tories so not at all surprised.

Imperator_DK:

If you are receiving benefits from the state, then the state can reasonably wield the same authority over you a private employer could.

So, an individual can be expected to work a full-time job (the hours they expect are often full time, as they were with me), with just as many duties as an actual employee, without training, but for a lot less than minimum wage?

I don't think the state can wield the same authority as an employer if they're not paying you anything near what an employer is required to by law, but expecting the same work.

Revnak:

Oh I understand that. I suppose I should have called it an internship. It just seems odd to me that they're willing to force people to give up internships in order to do... an internship.

Problem is, it's not an internship they put you on. An "internship" on a C.V. could be quite useful. These placements are called "work experience" or "sector-based work academies", and they're worth about as much on a C.V. as any involuntary placement is. About the same as your high school work experience was worth.

Plus, an internship will give training by definition, whereas these placements give no training.

This is why I took up an actual internship, and very nearly lost it because of this system.

Verbatim:
JSA pays something like 60GBP a week which is laughable especially if you live in London or any other major city, that wont even feed you. Minimum wage is around 290 a week which is also too low even to afford rent in most places..

Actually, it's even less, 56 a week.

Silvanus:
...
So, an individual can be expected to work a full-time job (the hours they expect are often full time, as they were with me), with just as many duties as an actual employee, without training, but for a lot less than minimum wage?

I don't think the state can wield the same authority as an employer if they're not paying you anything near what an employer is required to by law, but expecting the same work.
...

It's the state which set a minimum wage law to begin with.

One can argue that a more basic principle of "equality before the law" means that people required to work under JSA should get the same protection when doing the same work. But an "it violates equality before the law" argument can just as easily be used to argue for reduction of the minimum wage to JSA-level (...making it obsolete, since the lowest benefit level is in itself setting the de facto minimum wage). Hence it offers no more basic answer.

Which ultimately leaves things in the hands of the democratically legitimized politicians. Whose authority reach as far as the constitution will allow. I doubt accusing them of slavery will do much to sway public opinion come election day though. And if there isn't enough outrage about a monthly JSA rate[1] of a mere 230, I doubt this will be the case that'll topple them.

[1] Though I believe the UK have some fairly massive additional housing subsidiaries? It certainly must have, otherwise everyone on it would be homeless.

Imperator_DK:
If you are receiving benefits from the state, then the state can reasonably wield the same authority over you a private employer could.

This would put poundland under the state's authority

The government in this case is paying a private, profitable employer YOUR taxes to waste the girl's time

Btw, yes internships do count as slavery but the difference is that OUR taxes don't pay for their personal choice, my OP is simply the next level of the slave trade the government, poundland and others are taking part in.

Jamieson 90:
I'm sorry but what is so complicated about this? If you work you're entitled to and should expect to receive the minimum wage, as is every worker's right to ensure they can actually live. So what is the difference between someone actually employed at Poundland who stacks shelves and receives the minimum wage, and someone on the scheme who does exactly the same job, is their labour somehow just worth less? This is just simply another way for a Tory government to cater to large business whilst simultaneously shafting lower class people; simply put same old Tories so not at all surprised.

Look at it the other way around: If they received equal pay and needed more supervision, extra paperwork etc etc, why would any company offer its participation in such schemes to help peope get to work?

The person taking part is either better off in such a scheme through employment, finding rhytm, not being bored stiff, possibly learning something, but certainly not worse off.

The government saves money because they don't have to rig up expensive government work schemes instead and reduce the number of people on benefits.

The business get an incentive to participate in a social role for a business without it costing them extra money.


It looks like a win-win scenario to me really. For certain there doesn't appear to be an alternative that's not much more expensive.

Blablahb:
Look at it the other way around: If they received equal pay and needed more supervision, extra paperwork etc etc, why would any company offer its participation in such schemes to help peope get to work?

The person taking part is either better off in such a scheme through employment, finding rhytm, not being bored stiff, possibly learning something, but certainly not worse off.

The government saves money because they don't have to rig up expensive government work schemes instead and reduce the number of people on benefits.

The business get an incentive to participate in a social role for a business without it costing them extra money.


It looks like a win-win scenario to me really. For certain there doesn't appear to be an alternative that's not much more expensive.

While it may be a win-win the biggest winners are the companies because they get almost free labor (minus the administrative costs). What would be a fairer deal is if the companies had to pay for the gap between the unemployment benefits and minimum wage. This way the employees win more, the government wins more (more taxes, more purchasing power for the employee, etc.) and the company wins less but still wins (still cheaper than minimum wage labor)

And one could ask himself the question if this isn't just some hidden subsidy for companies that don't need any.

Shivarage:
...
This would put poundland under the state's authority

Yes, to the extent Poundland can be considered as "employed" to receive/train these workers, it must obviously follow the directives of its "employer" in regard to them.

The government in this case is paying a private, profitable employer YOUR taxes to waste the girl's time

Which is foolish in regard to this particular girl and her particular situation. But might not be so with everyone else covered by the regulation, or even a majority of them.

Btw, yes internships do count as slavery but the difference is that OUR taxes don't pay for their personal choice, my OP is simply the next level of the slave trade the government, poundland and others are taking part in.

...seems "slavery" isn't so bad any more. Not sure those who felt the crack of the whip or were sold away from their families would recognize the term.

Imperator_DK:

Btw, yes internships do count as slavery but the difference is that OUR taxes don't pay for their personal choice, my OP is simply the next level of the slave trade the government, poundland and others are taking part in.

...seems "slavery" isn't so bad any more. Not sure those who felt the crack of the whip or were sold away from their families would recognize the term.

Mmmm. There is wrong and there is wrong, and people should be wary of equating the two.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked