Unemployed lady seeks legal advice over human rights issue.

reply to post by femalepharoe


Yes, anyone can gain long term employment working at a store.

Did she (or any of those folks) expect the government to have a program specifically geared toward their chosen field of study?

It wasn't a "Come here and learn how to get a job as a Geologist" workshop. It was a "come here and get work experience that will help you in the real world" workshop.

reply to post by quackers


What are you talking about?

She volunteered at the museum "in the hopes" that it would give her job leads.

She was not working at the museum. She was volunteering.

People on unemployment are generally looking for a paid position, not a volunteer position.

Experience as a store worker will get you a paid position as a store worker.

Experience as a volunteer museum docent will get you a position as a volunteer museum docent.

reply to post by ottobot


Volunteering is working.

Working for bugger all in a shop will teach you how to use a till or manage stock but is she more likely to find a job just because she spend 2 weeks in Poundland? I highly doubt it.

These unpaid workers have no rights in the workplace and work under the threat of sanctions.
You may have worked for decades yet you need work experience?
Let's face it we all know what the Tories are about.

Jobseekers have to prove that they are actively seeking employment and the reality is that jobs are falling. Giving private companies free labour...because that's what it is...is only going to make matters worse. How long before everyone is on a work programme?

There is something wrong with a society that accepts the 'Work programme' as a viable solution to anything.

Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by femalepharoe

 

Yes, anyone can gain long term employment working at a store.

Did she (or any of those folks) expect the government to have a program specifically geared toward their chosen field of study?

It wasn't a "Come here and learn how to get a job as a Geologist" workshop. It was a "come here and get work experience that will help you in the real world" workshop.

My friend you've just provided another wide open window so we can look at the BIG picture.

This is what the article said regarding what skills they would receive:

"Miss Reilly and other candidates were sent to an employment skills training workshop for a week, aimed at improving attributes such as communication skills, followed by the five-hour-a-day stint at Poundland"


Ok. so according to the article improving attribute like communication skills. OK.

And accoriding to you , it was to get work experience that will help you in the "real world".

So then the implication is , that the government believes that the real world for us is a future stacking boxes and shelves at the dollar store??!!!!

How does the government - our leaders - benefit from having a future of box stackers?

And not to be a "snob" but essential tools like office management (filing , typing) or working a cash register etc... are menail tasks that could open the door to other ops. Not freely stacking boxes for a company when the holidays were coming up

Please read the article. The gov. wants her to work at poundland for 2 weeks FOR NOTHING. Pointless?

reply to post by quackers


I agree with you there. Volunteering is working, in the sense that you go to a specific place at a specific time and perform specific tasks that are required of you. One can never, however, get paid for volunteering.

On-the-job experience is working, gaining experience that could be used in a similar situation if one were to get a job in that field.

But, you need to realize, that many people receiving welfare do not have job experience or advanced degrees. In most government-run work experience situations, the worker is being trained to do the job and then hired to do the same job. These positions are chosen not because they are "just there", but because the employer is looking for a worker and willing to work with the government, who can supply a worker.

Whether the worker is willing or not is another story.

I think the main fault here is that successive governments have dumbed down exams and the education system in general (e.g. questions that used to appear in "ordinary" level exams now appear in the "advanced" exams taken after 2 further years of study) in order to encourage as many kids to go to university as possible in the belief that they'll get a better job.

(Also one of my customers was a university lecturer who told me that they had had to spend the first 9 months trying to bring the UK kids up to the level they should have been at when they arrived, mainly in maths).

These kids go to university under the impression that whatever subject they choose they'll be able to walk into a well paid job in that field afterwards. But it just isn't the case.

What they do is leave uni with a mountain of debt and find that they're fighting every other tom dick and harry for every job, because everyone has a degree.

It's like the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy where they make the leaf the unit of currency - if everyones got one they aren't worth anything - and on top of that everyones got a degree that is of less value than it should be because they're much easier to get.

This girl should have chosen a subject that would be likely to lead to a job, not something with very limited potential. It might not be what she WANTED to do, but hey, wouldn't we all prefer to be doing something we'd find more enjoyable?

I'd have liked to have been an astronaut, but no matter how many qualifications I'd have got towards that, I'd still be unemployed or facing reality and doing a job that was available.

It's sickening that there are people out there who take very low paid, unliked jobs because they have a family to raise and bills to pay, etc, but people like this girl think they should be able to sit on their derrieres getting money off the government until something that meets their approval comes along - which it possibly might not.

reply to post by femalepharoe


No. The real world, for many people, is that they must work menial labor until they are seventy years old.

There are many people who do not get a chance to have a higher education. She is not going to be treated as special if she is gathering the same money as people who have no education.

Originally posted by mandroids
Let me make 2 valid points.

1, this work will not enhance her chances of finding the work she studied for. In fact, it’s an insult to a graduate.

2, would YOU enjoy being forced into work you knew would make you feel unhappy?

Isn’t that what ATS is all about…rights? Please refrain from tabloid ‘she gotta work’ posts.

1. This work will provide income. It will enhance her work history. Graduates aren't entitled to a damn thing.

2. I hate my job, but it pays the bills. Take a survey of average WORKING adults to see if they are happy about their jobs, and if they are not, ask them why they continue working there.

ATS is about denying ignorance. I deny this thread.

Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by femalepharoe

 

No. The real world, for many people, is that they must work menial labor until they are seventy years old.

There are many people who do not get a chance to have a higher education. She is not going to be treated as special if she is gathering the same money as people who have no education.

so since we are giving opinions.

How do you feel about that "real world" you've described?

Do you feel that it should be challenged , or rather, that we have a right to challenge it?

Wether you have a degree or not , everyone wants the same thing. To be happy and stable and to be able to provide.

That does not entail stacking boxes for free for most people over the ages of 5.

reply to post by ottobot



One might not get paid for volunteering but it can lead to a paid position in the long term, this much is fact. In this day in age many people who are on welfare do have work experience and do have higher standards of education but the sad fact is that there simply are not enough jobs to satisfy everyone. There will always be unemployed people. Positions are chosen simply because they are there, your own practical experience is neither here nor there as far as the Job Centre is concerned. The voluntary position she had was exactly what she should be doing given her chosen field and it should be her right to cary on in that field as long as that position remains open to her. Otherwise, whats the point. Government supplied slave labour?

Originally posted by femalepharoe
reply to post by shansen

 

Agreed.

The vicious dog eat dog - attack mode that was institutionalized by the powers is so often displayed in this supposed place of higher thought its enough to make you sick.

Homo Homini Lupus...

reply to post by femalepharoe


And where, exactly, did I give an opinion in that post you quoted?

I live in the real world. Many people "stack boxes" for a living. They are not five year old children. Or, have you never gone to a grocery store?

She would not be working at a store for free. She would be working at a store for her unemployment check. Or, are you saying she deserves to be paid in addition to her unemployment check, which she has received thus far without having to do work experience?

No, I don't think it's a great way to live. But, nobody has ever said it is a great way to live. It is a way to survive in the world we do live in, though.

If she doesn't want to do work experience jobs, she does not have to.

She should, however, be prepared to have her unemployment benefits revoked if she does not want to follow the rules that were set forth when she agreed to take the benefits in the first place.

reply to post by quackers


She is suing as a "human rights" violation.

What are human rights? In business: www.ohchr.org... .

She is not working for free. She is working for her unemployment check. Just because she was not previously required to work did not mean she would never have to.

I get what you're saying, I just don't see how this suit could ever win in a court.

If she wins her case, it will set precedence in the labor and legal fields. That would mean every person on unemployment, every college grad or unemployed person with two or more years of work experience could just stay on public assistance/benefits forever if a job doesn’t meet their qualifications. Boy how people have changed.

reply to post by PW229


I couldn't agree more, the unemployed have been the whipping boy for various governments since Thatcher got the ball rolling in the 80's. If "Newspapers" such as The Sun/Mirror & their ilk would actually inform people of the RELATIVE costs of the military in Afghanistan/Libya, the tax that the rich constantly avoid paying & so much more waste in Westminster & Town Halls up & down the country, the public would soon realize that the trifling amount saved by demonizing so called scroungers (The Poor) in a year, could be saved in a day elsewhere. If People were not so blinded by hate & refused to be manipulated so easily this whole "Story" would be irrelevant.

Originally posted by Gridrebel
If she wins her case, it will set precedence in the labor and legal fields. That would mean every person on UE. Every college grad or unemployed person with two or more years of work experience could just stay on public assistance/benefits forever if a job doesn’t meet their qualifications. Boy how people have changed.

No it wouldn't...


This woman has a job... a voluntary job already.
All they are doing is moving her from one unpaid job to another.

If she had NO job and they wanted her to work at poundland, most people would never have defended her.
The fact she is already working (voluntary work) has made people take notice.

Also during this thread, it has come to light that these corporations are not paying these employees for their work, they are essentially free/slave labour.

That is what the issue is here.

Originally posted by femalepharoe

Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by femalepharoe

 

No. The real world, for many people, is that they must work menial labor until they are seventy years old.

There are many people who do not get a chance to have a higher education. She is not going to be treated as special if she is gathering the same money as people who have no education.

so since we are giving opinions.

How do you feel about that "real world" you've described?

Do you feel that it should be challenged , or rather, that we have a right to challenge it?

Wether you have a degree or not , everyone wants the same thing. To be happy and stable and to be able to provide.

That does not entail stacking boxes for free for most people over the ages of 5.

What do you want challenged? Do you think shelves don't need to be stacked? Do you think people who do that are of some lesser class or something? It's life, that's how it is. Maybe the 'challenge' is to not encourage so many people to go to university when the qualifications they get don't mean much if there are no jobs that require them.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by femalepharoe

Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by femalepharoe

 

No. The real world, for many people, is that they must work menial labor until they are seventy years old.

There are many people who do not get a chance to have a higher education. She is not going to be treated as special if she is gathering the same money as people who have no education.

so since we are giving opinions.

How do you feel about that "real world" you've described?

Do you feel that it should be challenged , or rather, that we have a right to challenge it?

Wether you have a degree or not , everyone wants the same thing. To be happy and stable and to be able to provide.

That does not entail stacking boxes for free for most people over the ages of 5.

What do you want challenged? Do you think shelves don't need to be stacked? Do you think people who do that are of some lesser class or something? It's life, that's how it is. Maybe the 'challenge' is to not encourage so many people to go to university when the qualifications they get don't mean much if there are no jobs that require them.

I bet your a fan of Wal-Mart's business practices are you??

"someone's got to do it!! so they best take the scraps we throw them"

That in itself is also a false hood. If you ask the majority of young graduates going into the work force, believe me I know, you will see that they are going to entry level interviews competing against old proffesionals.

It will say "entry level" but with "5 years of experience" needed. LOL.

They fact a lone that she is volunteering at a museum indicates that there is a need for the work!

How is this the government's problem?

as someone noted : Homo Homini Lupus...

This ficticious "no jobs" scam have allowed the coroporations in bed with the NWO to do whatever they like, pitting one against the other for cents to the dollar as we are counted as the slave labour.

Many of those people who would work in a dollar store at 70 now, are the very ones who could have been able to retire at 50 from their factory job...had the government not sold them out.

...but be thankful you cry..