We recruit the best people to serve our customers at all times. Some of our best colleagues have joined us having previously been unemployed. Much or our recruitment takes place locally. We do not have a policy to recruit from the workfare programme and do not aim to roll this out.
Thank you for bringing it to our attention
-
They "don't have a policy" to recruit from the workfare programme is NOT the same as not recruiting from the workfare programme, it's all in the wording.
Strictly speaking they are not lying about not being involved in Workfarescheme. Although workfare is used as a synonym for unpaid work for benefits schemes, it is an actual scheme that does not exist in the UK. Companies like hombase know exactly what you mean by workfare but can deny any involvement, when addressing companies about their involvement in these disgusting exploitative schemes either find out which scheme they are using or use a generic term like unpaid work for benefits.
Strictly speaking they are not lying about not being involved in Workfarescheme. Although workfare is used as a synonym for unpaid work for benefits schemes, it is an actual scheme that does not exist in the UK. Companies like hombase know exactly what you mean by workfare but can deny any involvement, when addressing companies about their involvement in these disgusting exploitative schemes either find out which scheme they are using or use a generic term like unpaid work for benefits.
shouldnt the government technically put the benefit up to the minimum wage for hours worked?
Is it too much to expect politicians to, just for once in their lives, be actually honest.
Turns out I was right when I said that welfare reform was purely ideological and not designed to reduce the deficit. What a shocker! Oh wait... no it isn't.
Although I think we all kind of knew that when it turned out that the measures being introduced by IDS would hit a minority of the benefit bill, when pensioners and those whom "work hard and get on" - workers in receipt of benefits and tax credits whom make up the vast majority of welfare expenditure would be untouched by welfare reform.
If you can get people to work for free, why would they pay for labour?
If i could get given free food... why would I go to a shop and pay for it?
Real work experience would be in a skilled department (be it admin, IT , HR) with qualifictations.
I would like to see real work experience for the longterm unemployed but it would need to be structured in a field the claimant is interested and have realetd qualifications.
Give them motivation and interest in work.
My thoughts exactly.
If I was in such a situation and the JC allowed it instead of forcing me onto some patronising 'he's unemployed so that means his intellingence only stretches to picking up liyyer, sweeping up leaves, clearing snow, doing gardens and painting fences and stacking shelves in a supermarket' style scheme, I'd be happy to do it in a graphic design studio. I propbably wouldn't get the job but at least I'd gain some useful experience and actually get to see whether I could get my head around the likes of Photoshop/ILLUSTRATOR/CORELDRAW/PAINT or not.
Like somebody said once, it's all bullshit about qualifications.
I was thinking of going to Homebase for some paint and Roseclear, so thanks to this heads-up, I will boycott them and go elsewhere.
I'm always amazed that some posters need to question the ethics of Workfare. Any company using Workfare is exploiting the unemployed to work for nothing, they are not paid by the company, and only receive their state benefit.
Exploiting this situation the company does not need to hire someone and pay them a wage, perpetuating the unemployment levels, and creating a vicious cycle of unemployment whereby it uses slave labour rather than hire.
What is therefore happening is the taxpayer is providing free labour so that greedy shareholders can receive a higher dividend through increasing the company profits from cutting staff overheads. Wages/salaries are almost always the biggest expense (and an allowable tax expense) any company has, so through not hiring they pay less tax, and instead the taxpayer provides them with a free workforce.
If we go back to the 1980s and the YTS scheme, many young people on YTS were taken on, as fully trained and experienced staff. I worked in the NHS at the time and every YTS trainee passing through the office was taken on as someone left and a vacancy became available. This doesn't appear to be the case with Workfare, and it isn't why the scheme was set up.
I know Peterborough, Focus used to be heavy users of whatever Workfare was called, before it was Workfare. They are shut now, and no one was shocked.
One day the bloke I knew who was doing unpaid work, told me there was about 5 unpaid people in, and one day all the paid staff were sent home. He also told me, Focus never kept anybody on, and the provider didnt care at all.
Well I don't see nothing wrong with it. Lets say the store I work in isn't hiring because we don't need any staff, but it's still busy, but like every company these days, they have to stuggle along trying to keep wages down. If you can get someone for free to help out, then why not?
The only thing I would change is I wouldn't have people in stores like Tesco, I would have people cleaning up the streets, painting things that need painting, cleaning grafiti and stuff like that.
This poster, leaked yesterday from Haringey Homebase, shows exactly how employers view workfare: an easy way to cut the wages bill. Homebase claim “We ensure they work alongside, not replace, paid colleagues”, but a staff member has told us that since tens of workfare placements were brought in, overtime has been cut for everyone. Some people’s hours have been cut from 48 down to 8 – far below the threshold for Working Tax Credits – because that is all they are contracted for.
It turns out 750 hours with no payroll costs – the figure for just one week in just one of Homebase’s 342 stores – does have a massive impact on the paid work available. Apparently it’s an effect that is popular with the regional manager, who we’ve heard has been trying to get all Homebase stores in her region to use workfare, and has been suspending or moving managers who don’t.
Hmm, makes me wonder who the real so called benefit scroungers are.
More and more evidence emerging of companies exploiting workfare and Work programme people on placements, cutting the hours of paid staff, replacing paid staff etc and yet these companies still have people on here who support such actions.
More and more evidence emerging of companies exploiting workfare and Work programme people on placements, cutting the hours of paid staff, replacing paid staff etc and yet these companies still have people on here who support such actions.
I have always said before that it was hard to prove that Work Fare, effects the amount of paid jobs, and paid hours.
This 1 sheet of A4 paper, proves me wrong, it is apparently very easy to prove it.
I have always said before that it was hard to prove that Work Fare, effects the amount of paid jobs, and paid hours.
This 1 sheet of A4 paper, proves me wrong, it is apparently very easy to prove it.
I don't think it actually "proves" it, but it most certainly does add to the weight of other evidence emerging, from testimonials of those contacting the Guardian and Boycott Workfare and the like.
I don't think it actually "proves" it, but it most certainly does add to the weight of other evidence emerging, from testimonials of those contacting the Guardian and Boycott Workfare and the like.
I think the "would 750 hours with no payroll costs help your store?" line is pretty conclusive.
Comments
Strictly speaking they are not lying about not being involved in Workfarescheme. Although workfare is used as a synonym for unpaid work for benefits schemes, it is an actual scheme that does not exist in the UK. Companies like hombase know exactly what you mean by workfare but can deny any involvement, when addressing companies about their involvement in these disgusting exploitative schemes either find out which scheme they are using or use a generic term like unpaid work for benefits.
shouldnt the government technically put the benefit up to the minimum wage for hours worked?
To increase footfall as Easter Sunday they are shut?:D
Although I think we all kind of knew that when it turned out that the measures being introduced by IDS would hit a minority of the benefit bill, when pensioners and those whom "work hard and get on" - workers in receipt of benefits and tax credits whom make up the vast majority of welfare expenditure would be untouched by welfare reform.
My thoughts exactly.
If I was in such a situation and the JC allowed it instead of forcing me onto some patronising 'he's unemployed so that means his intellingence only stretches to picking up liyyer, sweeping up leaves, clearing snow, doing gardens and painting fences and stacking shelves in a supermarket' style scheme, I'd be happy to do it in a graphic design studio. I propbably wouldn't get the job but at least I'd gain some useful experience and actually get to see whether I could get my head around the likes of Photoshop/ILLUSTRATOR/CORELDRAW/PAINT or not.
Like somebody said once, it's all bullshit about qualifications.
https://en-gb.facebook.com/homebase
www.boycottworkfare.org
Heh, that was my first thought too.
Florian banned 12/02/2013. Diaz joins on 14/02/2013 and carries on where Florian left off.
I'm always amazed that some posters need to question the ethics of Workfare. Any company using Workfare is exploiting the unemployed to work for nothing, they are not paid by the company, and only receive their state benefit.
Exploiting this situation the company does not need to hire someone and pay them a wage, perpetuating the unemployment levels, and creating a vicious cycle of unemployment whereby it uses slave labour rather than hire.
What is therefore happening is the taxpayer is providing free labour so that greedy shareholders can receive a higher dividend through increasing the company profits from cutting staff overheads. Wages/salaries are almost always the biggest expense (and an allowable tax expense) any company has, so through not hiring they pay less tax, and instead the taxpayer provides them with a free workforce.
If we go back to the 1980s and the YTS scheme, many young people on YTS were taken on, as fully trained and experienced staff. I worked in the NHS at the time and every YTS trainee passing through the office was taken on as someone left and a vacancy became available. This doesn't appear to be the case with Workfare, and it isn't why the scheme was set up.
One day the bloke I knew who was doing unpaid work, told me there was about 5 unpaid people in, and one day all the paid staff were sent home. He also told me, Focus never kept anybody on, and the provider didnt care at all.
So you see someting wrong with it then.
What is the 'something' you see that's wrong?
This poster, leaked yesterday from Haringey Homebase, shows exactly how employers view workfare: an easy way to cut the wages bill. Homebase claim “We ensure they work alongside, not replace, paid colleagues”, but a staff member has told us that since tens of workfare placements were brought in, overtime has been cut for everyone. Some people’s hours have been cut from 48 down to 8 – far below the threshold for Working Tax Credits – because that is all they are contracted for.
It turns out 750 hours with no payroll costs – the figure for just one week in just one of Homebase’s 342 stores – does have a massive impact on the paid work available. Apparently it’s an effect that is popular with the regional manager, who we’ve heard has been trying to get all Homebase stores in her region to use workfare, and has been suspending or moving managers who don’t.
Full article here:
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2404
Guardian article also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/06/homebase-criticised-work-experience-claims
Contact Homebase:
On Facebook: www.facebook.com/homebase
On Twitter: Tweet to @homebase_uk
By email: order.enquiries@homebase.co.uk or info@homebase.co.uk or enquiries@homebase.co.uk
By phone: 0845 077 8888 or 0845 601 6911
Or contact the company they are owned by: http://www.homeretailgroup.com/contact-us/
More and more evidence emerging of companies exploiting workfare and Work programme people on placements, cutting the hours of paid staff, replacing paid staff etc and yet these companies still have people on here who support such actions.
This 1 sheet of A4 paper, proves me wrong, it is apparently very easy to prove it.
I don't think it actually "proves" it, but it most certainly does add to the weight of other evidence emerging, from testimonials of those contacting the Guardian and Boycott Workfare and the like.
And that is not the only name he has posted under.