Britain’s jobless young people are being sent to work for supermarkets and budget stores for up to two months for no pay and no guarantee of a job, the Guardian can reveal.
These people are doing 30 hrs/week for their £53/week benefit.
For full details, go here.
That’s horrifying.
Question: What happens if a slave is injured while doing this work, or faces workplace harassment?
The details of this scheme are not fully clear from the story (also, the article seems to jump back and forth between separate schemes in a manner that is a little confusing).
Does the scheme apply only to people who would otherwise be at the end of their JSA benefits duration? In other words, does it amount to a conditional extension of benefits?
With regard to Michel’s question, I presume that these people are considered employees for purposes of worker’s comp and sexual harassment laws, as unpaid positions generally are.
Excellentnews. Don’t like having to work for your welfare? Get a proper job.
Terry – NEWS FLASH: There are no proper jobs. Where have you been all recession?
No Nemo – it’s not a way to extend your benefits.
The article is a bit confusing but it looks as if this applies only to people who have expressed an interest in work experience and that according to the rules they can pull out in the first week, but that many of them are not being told about the one week clause. it doesn’t sound like a great work experience program but it doesn’t sound like slavery either.
I have a friend who was offered such ‘work experience’. and no, she didn’t ‘express an interest in work experience’. she wanted a job. she asked for help getting a job. she already had experience. they told her it was this free labour or nothing. this most certainly is slavery.
Won’t this undercut the creation of actual jobs? If retail stores can get people on gov’t assistance to work for nothing (or next-to-nothing? I take it the stores aren’t paying them), and if they can get people to work for free, then why would they create actual paying jobs?
kimberly: exactly.
“this most certainly is slavery.”
No, it most certainly isn’t.
Is it *really* necessary to explain why it isn’t slavery? I am willing to explain, if it’s necessary.
Anon.:
I suppose you’re right–the proper term is ‘extortion’.