Waterstones ends unpaid work placements after investigation

[Elaine Kirk]

.
From the Guardian where the full story has links to relevant items
.

The high street book store Waterstones has pulled out of a government scheme that employed unpaid jobseekers in its stores after a Guardian investigation uncovered the practice at one of its outlets.

More than a dozen other high street chains have been taking on unemployed workers for weeks without pay as part of the government's Work Experience scheme and others like it.

In a case lodged in the high court, the government has defended itself against claims that the unpaid work experience schemes are contrary to Human Rights Act legislation on forced labour.

Cait Reilly, a 22-year-old geology graduate, brought her case against the Department for Work and Pensions, saying she was made to work in her local Poundland store branch for three weeks without pay.

In court papers filed on Wednesday, the DWP admitted that it made a mistake by not telling Reilly she had a chance to opt out of the placement. But it says her scheme and others like it are not contrary to the Human Rights Act, and the department is "strongly resisting" the case.

.

[Earthtracer]

High Blood Pressure time! These schemes are to give kids work experience. The kids are worth nothing*, they know nothing and are a liability, taking up the time of paid staff to show them the ropes. Nor are they likely to return, so they are not being trained up for a specific job. In return, after a few weeks they know a little, perhaps appreciate a little and may have found the experience helpful. Why on earth should they be paid? In fact, they are lucky they don't have to pay!

*I do not, of course mean that they are worthless; far from it. But in terms of employability they are rawer than the first day apprentice, with no value to the employer other than the ephemeral one of perhaps telling their friends what nice people XXX Ltd are.

[Polly]

If a person being is given work to do that is comparable to others doing a similar job, then they should be paid the same. It's been established and accepted that women should be paid the same for doing the same job as a man and that those of 'ethnic origin' should be paid the same as whites, so why shouldn't jobless people be paid the same for doing the same job as a paid employee?

A full-time employee at one Holland and Barrett store, who did not want to be identified, said they believed the placements were starting to replace paid work.

"We have had a number of placements in our store and have noticed that the hours for part-time staff have been reduced. Staff are upset because we are all struggling to make ends meet," the employee said.

"The real benefactors of this scheme are the companies who receive millions of pounds worth of labour absolutely free of charge and the losers are the jobseekers who see potential jobs being filled by workfare placements for months at a time and the loyal part-timers who find their regular overtime hours savagely cut."

While this programme is running there will be fewer jobs available for people who are looking for jobs and the employers are using free workforces instead.

How on earth is this supposed to get people into work?

You can only get people into work when there is work to get people into

DD was interviewed for a job recently and told she was one of 500 applicants for ONE job!

This is normal for this county, where jobs are few and far between and there are so many looking for work.

[Earthtracer]

As I understand it, these placements are for a few weeks to give some experience of the world of work. There should be no question of paid employees having hourse cut - it is from them the placed people are supposed to learn! If the system is being abused, then very firm and speedy action should and must be taken to stamp such abuse out.