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 PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Imperator_DK:
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 state requires by law that anyone doing a job is paid minimum wage at the least, especially a private company

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.

How do you know? you made it clear that you would never even consider doing one of these schemes for your job so obviously they aren't necessary, did your rich daddy ask his rich friend to pick you over the hard working & the deserving?

...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.

Slavery is still horrible FULL STOP. (yes, internships should still be made illegal but guess who lobbied the government to allow it and makes the profit?)
Why do you downplay the girl's exploitation and then completely exaggerate your next point? I'd think you're either playing the devil's advocate for the sake of it or just don't want to learn how to live in a civilised society, we're supposed to be making progress...

Imperator_DK:
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?

It often is. But when doing academic work, one usually does A) What one actually wants to do, and not something one is forced to do in order to get money, and B) something which garners you respect. I've never felt respected doing unpaid work in retail, for instance.

thaluikhain:

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.

I'm unsure what you are saying here. That some deeds are worse than others?

Realitycrash:

thaluikhain:

Imperator_DK:

...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.

I'm unsure what you are saying here. That some deeds are worse than others?

I mean that while this is bad, slavery is something much worse, and equating the two minimises it.

Blablahb:

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 government gives them their benefits, the government can raise their benefits for those two weeks if they complete the course adaquately. Sure, most of the bigger problems still exist, but at least the law is being consistent the minimum wage. Also, making the increased benefits for those two weeks the incentive for going through with it and making it otherwise voluntary seems to be a better, more flexible structure.

Edit- actually, have the businesses pay part of it, like General said. Lower the burden on the tax payers and all that. Though I don't think the business should have to pay the full gap themselves as that's pretty close to minimum wage on its own, maybe just half of it.

Silvanus:

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.

I'm just trying to use identical terms as I intend to argue that they could accept the internship as their way of fulfilling the requirement outside of the scheme.

The issue here is that she was claiming a benefit that is conditional on her seeking paid employment, studying is not covered by this, and nor is internship, if she chooses to do an internship to further her chances of getting started in her chosen career then fine.
However, she is not entitled to claim welfare money from the state to pay for it while she does so.
Your chosen career may entail sacrifices and unpaid internship may be one of them, but the key word here is CHOSEN!
I disagree with her being put to work in Poundland however, as no company should benefit from virtually free labour while the taxpayer has to pay the JSA, she should have been put to work digging up the roads instead, something which will benefit us all.
If she finds that objectionable she can always find an actual paying job, or she can take out a loan to finance her internship, she has chosen this type of career path, so she can pay for it herself!

Imperator_DK:

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.

Your argument is that we might as well just lower the minimum wage...?

The lowest benefit level is not a de facto minimum wage. The purpose of a minimum wage is to ensure adequate payment-for-work ratio. Unless you want to start arguing that 6.19 per hour is too much for the proles to be getting, the point stands that what JSA claimants on workfare schemes are getting against what they were expected to do is way off.

Revnak:

I'm just trying to use identical terms as I intend to argue that they could accept the internship as their way of fulfilling the requirement outside of the scheme.

Ah, ok, I misunderstood. My bad.

thaluikhain:

Realitycrash:

thaluikhain:

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

I'm unsure what you are saying here. That some deeds are worse than others?

I mean that while this is bad, slavery is something much worse, and equating the two minimises it.

Eh, I disagree. It doesn't minimize it, it just highlights that some forms of slavery can be better than others. There were MANY rather well-off slaves (some slaves could even be rich) back in the Roman empire, for instance. Any slave doing bureaucratic work would be treated far, far better than those working in a mine or in the fields.
Today, we have the classic forms of slavery still alive and kicking. In Africa, for instance.
That doesn't mean that any other form of slavery is still slavery.

Edit: And the idea that some jobs or internships can't be considered slavery because you can 'always quit' I find patently absurd. Having to chose between starvation and a slave-position is no choice at all. Hey, classic slaves could always kill themselves so clearly they weren't slaves afterall.

Realitycrash:

thaluikhain:

Realitycrash:

I'm unsure what you are saying here. That some deeds are worse than others?

I mean that while this is bad, slavery is something much worse, and equating the two minimises it.

Eh, I disagree. It doesn't minimize it, it just highlights that some forms of slavery can be better than others. There were MANY rather well-off slaves (some slaves could even be rich) back in the Roman empire, for instance. Any slave doing bureaucratic work would be treated far, far better than those working in a mine or in the fields.
Today, we have the classic forms of slavery still alive and kicking. In Africa, for instance.
That doesn't mean that any other form of slavery is still slavery.

Edit: And the idea that some jobs or internships can't be considered slavery because you can 'always quit' I find patently absurd. Having to chose between starvation and a slave-position is no choice at all. Hey, classic slaves could always kill themselves so clearly they weren't slaves afterall.

So then the question becomes what quality of slavery makes it a human rights violation? I think most would agree that it is the involuntary aspect. However, one could easily argue that this system isn't necessarily voluntary, though I'm starting to think that would be a hard argument.

Revnak:

Realitycrash:

thaluikhain:

I mean that while this is bad, slavery is something much worse, and equating the two minimises it.

Eh, I disagree. It doesn't minimize it, it just highlights that some forms of slavery can be better than others. There were MANY rather well-off slaves (some slaves could even be rich) back in the Roman empire, for instance. Any slave doing bureaucratic work would be treated far, far better than those working in a mine or in the fields.
Today, we have the classic forms of slavery still alive and kicking. In Africa, for instance.
That doesn't mean that any other form of slavery is still slavery.

Edit: And the idea that some jobs or internships can't be considered slavery because you can 'always quit' I find patently absurd. Having to chose between starvation and a slave-position is no choice at all. Hey, classic slaves could always kill themselves so clearly they weren't slaves afterall.

So then the question becomes what quality of slavery makes it a human rights violation? I think most would agree that it is the involuntary aspect. However, one could easily argue that this system isn't necessarily voluntary, though I'm starting to think that would be a hard argument.

As I pointed out in my edit, many positions aren't necessarily involuntary. You CAN quit without starving. You might have to move, or sell your car, or cut back on pretty much everything, but there are other options.
..And then there are the times when you really have no other options. You can't move, you have nothing to cut back on, etc. Of course, say you find a job that pays you, but you hate it. Is it slavery because you can't afford to quit?
Not having an option to quit might not make a job into slavery, but having an option to quit but end up starving isn't much better.

Silvanus:
...
Your argument is that we might as well just lower the minimum wage...?

If arguing on the level of fundamental principles which limit state sovereignty, such as "equality before the law", then yes, that would be an equally viable solution.

The lowest benefit level is not a de facto minimum wage. The purpose of a minimum wage is to ensure adequate payment-for-work ratio. Unless you want to start arguing that 6.19 per hour is too much for the proles to be getting, the point stands that what JSA claimants on workfare schemes are getting against what they were expected to do is way off.

And the government has by law made it so. So obviously it doesn't think the work of JSA claimants is worth 6.19 per hour, and apparently neither does the market, as it originally wouldn't hire them at that price. Though whether this scheme is by now actively discouraging it from doing so is probably something that should be examined.

Shivarage:

The state requires by law that anyone doing a job is paid minimum wage at the least, especially a private company

And it has also by law exempted people on these unemployment workforce schemes from such minimum wage.

How do you know?

I don't. So when it's had time to work, somebody really should examine whether this initiative have had a positive effect on the overall UK unemployment. Seems that it can already be concluded that it's at least in need of some adjustment, to exempt certain cases like this geology student.

you made it clear that you would never even consider doing one of these schemes for your job so obviously they aren't necessary, did your rich daddy ask his rich friend to pick you over the hard working & the deserving?

...what?

Slavery is still horrible FULL STOP. (yes, internships should still be made illegal but guess who lobbied the government to allow it and makes the profit?)
Why do you downplay the girl's exploitation and then completely exaggerate your next point? I'd think you're either playing the devil's advocate for the sake of it or just don't want to learn how to live in a civilised society, we're supposed to be making progress...

If this is progress, I'd like to go back to the future. Preferably one where the political agenda isn't as tabloid-oriented. And I believe you're using the term "civilized" in reference to "welfare". They aren't synonyms, the US is a civilized society, yet not a welfare society. I personally prefer a welfare society (...so in that sense I'm playing devil's advocate), but if the politicians who've ultimately been voted in want something else, that's for them to decide. Such is the contract of a democratic society.

Realitycrash:
...
It often is. But when doing academic work, one usually does A) What one actually wants to do, and not something one is forced to do in order to get money, and B) something which garners you respect. I've never felt respected doing unpaid work in retail, for instance.

Well, either way, it's equally terminologically incorrect. Slavery is being somebody else's property, in that they legally own you, and can have you brought back by force if you attempt to leave.

No, you cannot feed yourself without a job, as food doesn't magically appear out of thin air; that is in no meaningful way a basis on which to talk about "slavery". Well, unless you're talking about being a slave to reality. Which applies to us all, though how kindly our master treats us varies quite a bit.

Realitycrash:

Revnak:

Realitycrash:

Eh, I disagree. It doesn't minimize it, it just highlights that some forms of slavery can be better than others. There were MANY rather well-off slaves (some slaves could even be rich) back in the Roman empire, for instance. Any slave doing bureaucratic work would be treated far, far better than those working in a mine or in the fields.
Today, we have the classic forms of slavery still alive and kicking. In Africa, for instance.
That doesn't mean that any other form of slavery is still slavery.

Edit: And the idea that some jobs or internships can't be considered slavery because you can 'always quit' I find patently absurd. Having to chose between starvation and a slave-position is no choice at all. Hey, classic slaves could always kill themselves so clearly they weren't slaves afterall.

So then the question becomes what quality of slavery makes it a human rights violation? I think most would agree that it is the involuntary aspect. However, one could easily argue that this system isn't necessarily voluntary, though I'm starting to think that would be a hard argument.

As I pointed out in my edit, many positions aren't necessarily involuntary. You CAN quit without starving. You might have to move, or sell your car, or cut back on pretty much everything, but there are other options.
..And then there are the times when you really have no other options. You can't move, you have nothing to cut back on, etc. Of course, say you find a job that pays you, but you hate it. Is it slavery because you can't afford to quit?
Not having an option to quit might not make a job into slavery, but having an option to quit but end up starving isn't much better.

Well it makes for a good argument for getting people angry about the issue, I just doubt it would ever hold up in court to support the idea that her human rights were impeded. It may essentially be slavery, and I may be willing to call it that, but it is not legally slavery. At least not by that argument.

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

Don't need to, I'm not eligible for any of these schemes. However, I can still make political and economic arguments, and this is still a stupid economic argument disguising a nasty political ploy.

The scale here is not small. 160,000 people is a significant chunk of JSA claimants (of which there are about 1.5 million). Most of the signatories to workfare schemes have actually been downsizing their own businesses while doing so, putting more people on JSA and welfare. Others, (like poundland) have continued to report substantial profits year on year and yet aren't hiring staff. How does that make sense?

There is one and only one rationale for this kind of workfare, and it's not an economic argument at all. Workfare allows the government to massage unemployment figures in the short term by categorizing people on workfare as employed when they actually aren't, while also appearing to be "tough" on benefits, which Tory voters and the right-wing media are irrationally obsessed with.

Some kind of mandatory training for the long term unemployed to help them gain applicable skills. Great idea, except we already had that. Now we increasingly don't because it's been replaced by ridiculous and uncompetative workfare programs. Provisional short term work placements which have a realistic chance of transitioning into long term employment. Also potentially a good idea if well managed. That isn't what this is though.

If you like capitalism, you should hate workfare. It is the antithesis of healthy competitive capitalism. If the state was subsidizing uncompetitive behavior by certain large retailers by paying them with taxpayer money, there would be an outcry, but somehow subsidizing uncompetitive behavior by providing free labour at taxpayer expense is completely fine because young people today don't know the meaning of hard work. Give me a fucking break. Way to stick to your values, conservatives.

Blablahb:
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.

Poundland is a multi-million pound company with its own centralized and web-based HR department. It isn't some small business which puts signs up in windows.

Revnak:

Realitycrash:

Revnak:

So then the question becomes what quality of slavery makes it a human rights violation? I think most would agree that it is the involuntary aspect. However, one could easily argue that this system isn't necessarily voluntary, though I'm starting to think that would be a hard argument.

As I pointed out in my edit, many positions aren't necessarily involuntary. You CAN quit without starving. You might have to move, or sell your car, or cut back on pretty much everything, but there are other options.
..And then there are the times when you really have no other options. You can't move, you have nothing to cut back on, etc. Of course, say you find a job that pays you, but you hate it. Is it slavery because you can't afford to quit?
Not having an option to quit might not make a job into slavery, but having an option to quit but end up starving isn't much better.

Well it makes for a good argument for getting people angry about the issue, I just doubt it would ever hold up in court to support the idea that her human rights were impeded. It may essentially be slavery, and I may be willing to call it that, but it is not legally slavery. At least not by that argument.

No, as Imperator pointed out, to be a slave, one must be owned. So one isn't a slave. That doesn't mean the working-conditions are acceptable, though. For instance, in many cases, medieval Serfs were little more than slaves. But they were free-men, however loosely applied such a term might be.

Imperator_DK:
]

...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.

Oh hold on now that's just demagogy, are the Asian kids who glue together you brand new Nike's for couple of cents per day are not salves? How about the indentured workers building those cool looking skyscrapers in Dubai?

If any individual, business, or a corporation would offer the same condition as offered trough the JSA to it's workers it would be illegal, the JSA is just another way of circumventing worker rights laws. I come from a country where unpaid internship is illegal, and unless you're a non-profit you can't have non-paid workers or any other kind of volunteers, the fact that people with master degrees agree to intern is mind boggling to me.

The UK is a western country, with a very heavy tax burden, both in terms of direct taxes(high income tax, high national insurance) and indirect taxes(VAT at around 20%).
The fact that unemployment benefits are not at least equal to minimum wage is disturbing, in Israel the unemployment benefits equal to 58GBP per day, it's based on the average wage rather than the minimum wage(although you can get less than that(not less than 45GBP) if you have not worked before, or worked only part time).
The situation in many European countries is also quite similar, the JSA for all intents and purposes is if not modern "slavery" is gross exploitation...

Imperator_DK:

If arguing on the level of fundamental principles which limit state sovereignty, such as "equality before the law", then yes, that would be an equally viable solution.

And the government has by law made it so. So obviously it doesn't think the work of JSA claimants is worth 6.19 per hour, and apparently neither does the market, as it originally wouldn't hire them at that price.

Ah. You see, I'm arguing what I believe to be ethical, whereas you're arguing what you believe to be technically consistent with an unregulated labour market.

Which is kind of a pointless way to come at the issue, it seems to me. It's like arguing that nothing a government does can be wrong, because it's 'legal' by definition of the government doing it.

Also, no, a person's skills being near-to-worthless is not the only reason people are unemployed. That's a remarkably heartless and simplistic interpretation.

Verbatim:
...
Oh hold on now that's just demagogy, are the Asian kids who glue together you brand new Nike's for couple of cents per day are not salves? How about the indentured workers building those cool looking skyscrapers in Dubai?

They're not what's being discussed though. I believe Saudi Arabia actually allows the employees of foreign workers to retain their passports and have them brought back, which would be very close to slavery. Some Asian sweatshops probably come quite close too, and unofficial outright slavery exist in Africa.

If any individual, business, or a corporation would offer the same condition as offered trough the JSA to it's workers it would be illegal, the JSA is just another way of circumventing worker rights laws.

Since the state is who legitimately pass the laws, it doesn't "circumvent" them by adjusting their scope.

I come from a country where unpaid internship is illegal, and unless you're a non-profit you can't have non-paid workers or any other kind of volunteers, the fact that people with master degrees agree to intern is mind boggling to me.

The UK is a western country, with a very heavy tax burden, both in terms of direct taxes(high income tax, high national insurance) and indirect taxes(VAT at around 20%).
The fact that unemployment benefits are not at least equal to minimum wage is disturbing, in Israel the unemployment benefits equal to 58GBP per day, it's based on the average wage rather than the minimum wage(although you can get less than that(not less than 45GBP) if you have not worked before, or worked only part time).

An unemployment benefit of 1,740 ($2,695) a month seems quite high by international standards.

The situation in many European countries is also quite similar, the JSA for all intents and purposes is if not modern "slavery" is gross exploitation...

I can't name a European country where the state pays $2,695 a month to each ordinary unemployed person, at least not as a permanent rate. The Danish rate is less than 2/3rd's of that, and it's one of the Scandinavian welfare countries.

Silvanus:
...
Ah. You see, I'm arguing what I believe to be ethical, whereas you're arguing what you believe to be technically consistent with an unregulated labour market.

Which is kind of a pointless way to come at the issue, it seems to me. It's like arguing that nothing a government does can be wrong, because it's 'legal' by definition of the government doing it.

Well, nothing a democratically legitimized government does, which is within constitutional boundaries or fundamental legal principles underlining democracy is "wrong". One is free to criticize, even condemn it, but it must be respected nonetheless.

Also, no, a person's skills being near-to-worthless is not the only reason people are unemployed. That's a remarkably heartless and simplistic interpretation.

"Worth" in an economic sense relate to how much others are willing to pay for something. There a other forms of worth, but the relevant one here is whether they have something - a skill set - an employer have need of. There can be plenty of systemic reasons no employer have need of an otherwise skilled person, but that doesn't make the skill any less (temporarily) economically worthless.

Imperator_DK:
And it has also by law exempted people on these unemployment workforce schemes from such minimum wage.

Like Silvanator said, just because the government make it legal doesn't make it right and you ignored my lobbying comment so that you can continue believing the government are eternally just

If the law that the ordinary and average humans who call themselves "lords/ministers" are so divine and their law is perfect, why do they keep changing it?

I don't. So when it's had time to work, somebody really should examine whether this initiative have had a positive effect on the overall UK unemployment. Seems that it can already be concluded that it's at least in need of some adjustment, to exempt certain cases like this geology student.

I'm sorry but this just won't cut it
More than enough time is wasted "examining" things after it's too late, what we're doing in this thread is talking undisputed facts regarding economic theory and the effects such slavery projects are having and the consequences to our society, no time wasting plz

...what?

Thought so

If this is progress, I'd like to go back to the future. Preferably one where the political agenda isn't as tabloid-oriented. And I believe you're using the term "civilized" in reference to "welfare". They aren't synonyms, the US is a civilized society, yet not a welfare society. I personally prefer a welfare society (...so in that sense I'm playing devil's advocate), but if the politicians who've ultimately been voted in want something else, that's for them to decide. Such is the contract of a democratic society.

Depends on your definition of "democracy"

One where average men lie to gain power then do what they want regardless of the people's wishes is not a democracy (ie. the system we have right now)

generals3:

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.

The fact is they're not receiving equal pay or training or supervision. Basically what is happening is companies like Poundland are effectively getting free labour, and I hardly think people will be better off by being forced to work without pay in demeaning low skilled jobs, i.e. jobs like stacking shelves that anyone can do; it's not going to add anything to your C.V or give you any worthwhile experience.

Additionally the people on the scheme are still on benefits, but these are benefits they're entitled to anyway to live. You know we used to have a system like this years ago, and it was called the work house; people were given food to live on in return for their labour, with slave labour being a more accurate term, and it's not that dissimilar to this situation either, people need their 50 a week to live on, and if they don't go through with the JSA scheme they lose their benefit, so effectively people are getting paid 1 an hour which is way below the minimum wage, like I said it's exploitative and in no way a win-win situation.

Shivarage:
...
I'm sorry but this just won't cut it
More than enough time is wasted "examining" things after it's too late, what we're doing in this thread is talking undisputed facts regarding economic theory and the effects such slavery projects are having and the consequences to our society, no time wasting plz

I'll leave you to your slave fantasies, then.

evilthecat:

If you like capitalism, you should hate workfare. It is the antithesis of healthy competitive capitalism. If the state was subsidizing uncompetitive behavior by certain large retailers by paying them with taxpayer money, there would be an outcry, but somehow subsidizing uncompetitive behavior by providing free labour at taxpayer expense is completely fine because young people today don't know the meaning of hard work. Give me a fucking break. Way to stick to your values, conservatives.

This is a good point. Workfare is about trying to sate public rage over welfare recipients, and very little else.

That said, I'm actually fairly much in favour of the government offering schemes where people looking for work can acquire useful skills that will assist them in future. Which makes the idea of sending graduates to Poundland to stack shelves remarkably pointless - unless they are graduates with extremely low ambitions.

Imperator_DK:
I'll leave you to your slave fantasies, then.

It's official then, you don't want to learn anything or help anybody

Imperator_DK:

Well, nothing a democratically legitimized government does, which is within constitutional boundaries or fundamental legal principles underlining democracy is "wrong". One is free to criticize, even condemn it, but it must be respected nonetheless.

Why must it?

Imperator_DK:

"Worth" in an economic sense relate to how much others are willing to pay for something. There a other forms of worth, but the relevant one here is whether they have something - a skill set - an employer have need of. There can be plenty of systemic reasons no employer have need of an otherwise skilled person, but that doesn't make the skill any less (temporarily) economically worthless.

Well, first of all, people do not simply slot into where they are needed or wanted. It's pretty optimistic to think it works that way. A rural individual without a means of transport could have the skills required by an employer in the city, and should not be punished because the only skills locally required (which are extremely limited) don't match his skill-set. Particularly when there are simply far fewer positions available than applicants. I was told once the position I'd applied to had ninety-one applicants. So, the ninety who were unsuccessful should put the same work into a "sector based work academy", for a fraction of the payment, not enough for rent and at the cost of experience in the sector they have actually studied for? "Blame the unsuccessful, protect the system that exists, because that's how it is"?

And with this in mind-- would you say a person who's unemployed should not expect a livable financial situation? That's what's being justified here. An expectation of equivalent labour for (extraordinarily) unequal pay.

Verbatim:

...The situation in many European countries is also quite similar, the JSA for all intents and purposes is if not modern "slavery" is gross exploitation...

While not quite slavery, it bears striking resemblance to so called "Frondienste" or " serjeanty"/"socage" that were an integral part of serfdom in the middle ages. The serfs had to fulfill certain work requirements in exchange for protection, justice and land.
So, yeah...

The other guy who had his case heard alongside this girl actually got it worse. After (iirc)two years the government can effectively put you on an 40 hour work week for an indefinite period of time, where you likely do not receive any of the benefits normally granted to employees (e.g. holidays).

Now pray tell, how is one supposed to find a job through the job centre, which is open 9-5 Monday-Friday, while working a 40 hour week?

This shows where the governments priorities are - long term unemployment figures are a key statistic, by putting them on these 'training' programs they can doctor the figures to make things look better; playing to the 'we're getting people back into the workplace' line. It also shows how IDS thinks; once you've been out of work for a long period there's no point trying to find you a job, just milk you for free labour until you eventually quit and get off their books due to sheer exhaustion through having to deal with this system.

I have no problem with these kinds of schemes but they need to be a)relevant, there's no point giving someone a placement that offers no useful skills for the career they want, and b) worth the persons time financially, JSA is pitifully low and I doubt you get to claim for travel expenses incurred in getting to work. Where's the benefit in doing the placement if you lose money either way?

Karma168:
Now pray tell, how is one supposed to find a job through the job centre, which is open 9-5 Monday-Friday, while working a 40 hour week?

The fuck? 40hrs a week? Even the most demanding/intensive Work For The Dole projects are only 25hrs a week.

At least doing a WFTD project nets you Training Credits, which you can use to have the govt pay for your place in approved vocational training programs, gaining your certificates to qualify you for working in exciting industries such as Aged Care, Security and Bartending/Food Service (the 'infamous to Aussies' Bar and Waiting course)... although if you get qualifications in an industry that requires a Police Clearance to work in (Aged Care and Security both do) you have to pony up your own cash to pay for it and the plod aren't shy about charging for it.

The British version of that came under scrutiny for privacy and work reasons lately.

With regards to work for your benefits the governments looking at all sorts of ways to cheat people out of their benefits.
www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.400610-Man-dumped-20lbs-of-dog-dirt-in-a-job-centre

Shivarage:
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

Slavery? What slavery?
You do the work, you get paid, (by the government instead of your boss, but still paid), and you get experience and a reference.
If you don't do the work, you don't earn any of the above, that's denial of privilege, not denial of rights.

I think people might have a right to the opportunity to earn a living, but the living itself is a privilege until it is earned.

What's this? People being forced to work for their benefits? OUTRAGE!

image

There are serious problems with the way internships occur, notably that they allow children with wealthy, connected, parents far greater advantages over other kids which stymies social equality, which has a negative impact overall, as well as fostering nepotism, but this issue is not one of them.

Also it is worth noting that the intended target of this scheme is the long term unemployed. Whether forced labour is an effective mechanism will remain to be seen but you need to try something with those poor people.

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.

Because the darling Government decrees that you look for a job -any job- and if you don't, you lose the benefits.
Doesn't matter if you are mentally incapable of doing it, doesn't matter if its nowhere near your speciality, or hell, if you are even qualified to do it, you MUST apply to a certain number of jobs each week.

Now, this might not be general protocol in the Job centre, but it is here (Derbyshire, right on the Yorkshire border, for the record).

Bertylicious:

Also it is worth noting that the intended target of this scheme is the long term unemployed.

That's what they say. It's not how it works. I was put on two of these schemes pretty damn quickly, and my friend was put on over 3 months of unpaid work almost immediately.

The target of these schemes is anyone. The purpose of them is to lower the number of unemployed, by any means necessary. I mean, the Conservatives were found to be counting people on unpaid schemes as 'employed' quite recently, to distort the employment figures.

Coppernerves:

You do the work, you get paid, (by the government instead of your boss, but still paid), and you get experience and a reference.
If you don't do the work, you don't earn any of the above, that's denial of privilege, not denial of rights.

but the living itself is a privilege until it is earned.

I don't usually feed trolls but I have a special interest in your answer to a question

We will leave out the "reference" note because that is never guaranteed and we will leave out "experience" since your boss isn't paying you so it doesn't affect him financially if the work is messed up or not done (but he will punish you through government if it is either)

A huge part of the job description of owning/managing a profitable private business is to pay the workers their dues because, as you say, the living itself is a privilege until it is earned yes?

In which case, the profitable business owner is receiving what we can call "benefits" since he is not paying his dues for the labour

As we know, the benefits the business owner receives is far greater than the "benefits" of the involuntary worker, I ask you this

Who is the scrounger of the piece? the business owner recording ever-higher profit margins due to the free ride or the worker doing the work and not being paid his dues?

Shivarage:

Coppernerves:

*snip*

I don't usually feed trolls but I have a special interest in your answer to a question

We will leave out the "reference" note because that is never guaranteed and we will leave out "experience" since your boss isn't paying you so it doesn't affect him financially if the work is messed up or not done (but he will punish you through government if it is either)

A huge part of the job description of owning/managing a profitable private business is to pay the workers their dues because, as you say, the living itself is a privilege until it is earned yes?

In which case, the profitable business owner is receiving what we can call "benefits" since he is not paying his dues for the labour

As we know, the benefits the business owner receives is far greater than the "benefits" of the involuntary worker, I ask you this

Who is the scrounger of the piece? the business owner recording ever-higher profit margins due to the free ride or the worker doing the work and not being paid his dues?

While I don't usually feed trolls, your lack of *snop* signs, changing my post without indicating said changes, is something I'm compelled to point out in the vague hope that no malice was intended.

While I'll admit that a reference isn't guaranteed, relying on, among other things, having a boss who's kind enough to give one, the reasoning for leaving out experience seems flawed, as the boss IS affected financially if the work he's relying on someone to do doesn't get done on time.

Otherwise, why would they bother with deadlines?

You make a very interesting point about the boss getting benefits, if his labour is being paid for by the government, then the labour is indeed an unearned donation, and privilege, from the welfare system, or "benefit" as it is imprecisely called.

Ideally, the business owner will profit from the labour until they're making enough money that their taxes outweigh the pay of the worker, thus paying for the labour eventually, instead of on the workers' pay day.

If the boss deliberately avoids such a tax, then he is certainly scrounging, but otherwise he's just borrowing with interest.

Why they can't just take out a bank loan and use that to pay workers, then use the profit to pay off the debt before said loan runs out, I don't know.
I suspect it's something to do with the economy, but I'm not sure what the economy is other than "the thing which gives our money value".

I don't think the worker, who's well, working for his living is a scrounger either.

The "piece" may or may not have a scrounger based on the success of the business, the competence of the government, and the lawyers of the boss.

Oh, I've been doing unpaid labour for most of my life. We call them practicum or internships, though the general idea is that we're being paid in knowledge and experience, and the places we're at HAVE to take us in regardless of our obvious inexperience, so in the end it sort of works out.

But this? This is ridiculous. If you must send your smart people to waste time because they're smart, you can at least pay them just as much as what everyone else earns for doing the same work.

It's good to know there's a way to kick those on the lowest end of the socio-economic scale even more. During periods of high unemployment, the unskilled labourers are replaceable and have little negotiating power. It was even possible but to make them work longer hours for the same wage instead of hiring more people until minimum wage was invented. Now, some of them can be fired and replaced with free labour! You don't even have to pretend there might be a job for suitable candidates. If they or the real, unskilled employees walk off the job in protest over this, you can easily replace them. After all, if you needed staff with any loyalty or skill, you'd advertise the usual way and take your pick through the excess of candidates.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked