I'd like to know which supermarket this is. I have worked for 3 of the big supermarket names and none of them gave staff a meal for 50p and none of them gave free tea and coffee. They all had hot drinks machines that were about 20p a cup. Meals were about £1.50-£2.50 so still cheaper than the customer cafe. I haven't worked for any of them for a good few years now though so maybe they have improved.
I think the OP said in a earlier post it was Tesco
Not in the world of employment it isn't. Free tea/coffee would be considered a bonus by a lot of people. Free or even discounted meals would be astonishing. And that's my point - you're still talking as if it's a normal part of employment and it isn't - certainly not the food anyway.
not very courteous or nice to charge a young woman on only £72 a week JSA who is helping the supermarket.
Well she'd still have to buy the food and drink if she was stuck at home and as I've posted before she is getting something out of the arrangement even if it's just a change of scenery and a chance to do something productive for someone else. One other thing she's learning is how employers treat employees and how a lot of their 'nice' gestures are actually cynical ploys to keep employees happy. Since she isn't an employee they don't bother trying to keep her happy so she can see the truth. That's a good lesson to learn as she begins her working life
Unlike the Jobseeker, the Supermarket has a choice. Don't take on workfare if you're too stingy to provide them with refreshments and food. After all they're getting the labour for free and I think its pretty low when they begrudge these free workers food and drink adding up to only £5 a day.
On the other hand if a supermarket is desperate for more man power, how about offering REAL paid job vacancies instead of getting free labour from workfare?? It will also mean people on the dole getting a real job quitting benefits instead of exploitation.
Absolutely. If you have jobs going, give the unpaid worker a real paid job . If you don't have vacancies, you're in it for the government bung.
Giving an extra person a cup of tea at break time isn't eating into any of the employer's profits, as their profits should come from the business they do, not the cashback workfare incentive from the government. If that's their only profit, they are essentially running a loss-making business paid for by the taxpayers.
Absolutely. If you have jobs going, give the unpaid worker a real paid job . If you don't have vacancies, you're in it for the government bung.
Giving an extra person a cup of tea at break time isn't eating into any of the employer's profits, as their profits should come from the business they do, not the cashback workfare incentive from the government. If that's their only profit, they are essentially running a loss-making business paid for by the taxpayers.
I remember under Labour there was New Deal. Jobseekers had to do similar schemes but at least they had a choice of where to work and what type of work or training to do. In addition they got an extra £15 a week for taking part!
But the main rule under labour was that companies were not allowed to use Jobseekers simply as free labour, if the jobseeker did well enough they often got a real paid job at the end. With the Tory workfare firms are not obliged to give the jobseeker a real paid job and can continue taking batch after batch of workfare participants to exploit as free labour
Why should ANYONE work below the minimum wage?
People on benefits do not go out and spend £7 on one bloody meal - They'd go bust in no time.
Forced into a job of no interest or aptitude and a demeaning job that teaches you nothing. - So this girl now knows how to fold cardboard - That's f**king insulting!
Why should profit making companies get free labour under threats from the DWP?
Why should ANYONE work below the minimum wage?
People on benefits do not go out and spend £7 on one bloody meal - They'd go bust in no time.
Forced into a job of no interest or aptitude and a demeaning job that teaches you nothing. - So this girl now knows how to fold cardboard - That's f**king insulting!
Why should profit making companies get free labour under threats from the DWP?
It's punitive and designed to be so.
The Tory view is they'll say 'Sod it, I'll get a job."
I remember under Labour there was New Deal. Jobseekers had to do similar schemes but at least they had a choice of where to work and what type of work or training to do. In addition they got an extra £15 a week for taking part!
But the main rule under labour was that companies were not allowed to use Jobseekers simply as free labour, if the jobseeker did well enough they often got a real paid job at the end. With the Tory workfare firms are not obliged to give the jobseeker a real paid job and can continue taking batch after batch of workfare participants to exploit as free labour
I was a jobseeker under Thatcher - Employment Training - much the same as New Deal. i actually enjoyed doing it in some ways (I did have a good placement).
Absolutely. If you have jobs going, give the unpaid worker a real paid job . If you don't have vacancies, you're in it for the government bung.
It's a nice idea but suppose the jobs you have going just don't have enough value to justify employing someone?
This 'friend' fits that bill quite nicely. Having clean kitchens and warehouse floors is nice for the employees but not essential to the business. Probably not worth paying someone minimum wage for.
If you were in charge what would you do? You have no budget to pay wages but your staff are whining about dirty kitchens and boxes cluttering the warehouse floor?
She should try finding a voluntary role. For example, you can volunteer with most charities in shops or in administrative roles. I do appreciate even this can be difficult to get at the moment, but it's worth a go! I volunteered with the NHS and got a lot of receptionist/admin experience when doing that.
I'd also suggest maybe seeing if she can arrange work experience with a local company, such as admin in a law firm or something. Just phone around some places and see if they are willing to take on a temporary volunteer. This is something my sister did when she was claiming and she successfully got a placement which led to a job when someone else left.
As for the original point, workfare should be stopped. I appreciate there may be terms preventing the supermarket from offering discounted lunches etc, but this system shouldn't be in place at all. Paying someone £70 or whatever for 30 hours work?! The lunches should be paid for with an extra allowance or don't send people off to work for nothing.
I was a jobseeker under Thatcher - Employment Training - much the same as New Deal. i actually enjoyed doing it in some ways (I did have a good placement).
Ditto - I was on a scheme around 1990, dole plus £15 for 12 months. I was a p/t community minibus driver for pensioners, disabled, disadvantaged etc. I really enjoyed it.
When I finished, I got a job at Currys as a driver/installer. I was ahead of the other applicants - mainly because I'd been working. The boss actually said to me that he didn't take on unemployed, if at all possible, because they were unreliable. 'Don't want to get out of bed in the morning' was the phrase he used IIRC.
What percentage of the population actually want to spend their life on jobseekers ?? That's clearly who the 'workfare' is aimed at.
I am yet to meet a single one.
No she isn't. She is supplying labour to 'workfare' or 'the jobcentre' or 'the government' whatever you want to call it. They then choose to place her at someone else' premises.
These perks are part of the pay offered to employees by the supermarket. She is not an employee of the supermarket so she isn't entitled to them. If she wants perks she needs to negotiate them with her actual employer. The supermarket could offer them to anyone 'on site' but then they could lose value in the eyes of the 'real' employees which makes them less beneficial.
It's the same with contractors and consultants. They are unlikely to get cheap food and drink as well. Mind you at the rates they get paid I don't suppose they care and they may even write food costs off as a business expense as well.
You are right in strictest sense, however having worked at ASDA, i know that they allow the local police to eat at the discounted rate in the staff canteen, it obviously doesnt hurt to have the police popping into the store regularly.
So, there obviously is a mechanism to allow someone working there to get a discount as well, it all comes down to what the employer gets out if it, giving the police cheap food gets them a strong police presence, giving an unpaid worker cheap food benefits them in no way.
She should try finding a voluntary role. For example, you can volunteer with most charities in shops or in administrative roles. I do appreciate even this can be difficult to get at the moment, but it's worth a go! I volunteered with the NHS and got a lot of receptionist/admin experience when doing that.
I'd also suggest maybe seeing if she can arrange work experience with a local company, such as admin in a law firm or something. Just phone around some places and see if they are willing to take on a temporary volunteer. This is something my sister did when she was claiming and she successfully got a placement which led to a job when someone else left.
As for the original point, workfare should be stopped. I appreciate there may be terms preventing the supermarket from offering discounted lunches etc, but this system shouldn't be in place at all. Paying someone £70 or whatever for 30 hours work?! The lunches should be paid for with an extra allowance or don't send people off to work for nothing.
I really appreciate all that you have suggested but you do realise none of it can be done, you do what the DWP says or get sanctioned, you want to volunteer they tell you where and who with.
Same with arrange work experience with a local company, unless they tell you what company you get sanctioned.
It's a nice idea but suppose the jobs you have going just don't have enough value to justify employing someone?
This 'friend' fits that bill quite nicely. Having clean kitchens and warehouse floors is nice for the employees but not essential to the business. Probably not worth paying someone minimum wage for.
If you were in charge what would you do? You have no budget to pay wages but your staff are whining about dirty kitchens and boxes cluttering the warehouse floor?
Well we are talking about a supermarket here, so they obviously have the money to pay wages. As I don't believe in workfare - although perhaps if I were an employer with no moral compass I may feel differently and fancy skimming the government for thousands of pounds - I would get an employee to do the job or hire a cleaner - most supermarkets have plenty of those. If they don't then they should have, there are plenty of unemployed people looking for PAID work
It's a nice idea but suppose the jobs you have going just don't have enough value to justify employing someone?
This 'friend' fits that bill quite nicely. Having clean kitchens and warehouse floors is nice for the employees but not essential to the business. Probably not worth paying someone minimum wage for.
If you were in charge what would you do? You have no budget to pay wages but your staff are whining about dirty kitchens and boxes cluttering the warehouse floor?
The simple answer to that then is that you include all the little jobs in your other employee's duties. Most staff have to keep their workplace clean so part of their duties include getting the mop out at the end of the day and taking out refuse and putting it in the appropriate bin. That's just standard work outside of office employment.
The simple answer to that then is that you include all the little jobs in your other employee's duties. Most staff have to keep their workplace clean so part of their duties include getting the mop out at the end of the day and taking out refuse and putting it in the appropriate bin. That's just standard work outside of office employment.
So there is no excuse for it.
When I worked in a furniture store we had to do everything. Cleaning the kitchen and the toilets as well as the shop floor. Also baking the cookies and keeping the coffee machine stocked. Had to do all this in between serving customers, doing credit agreements, ordering, chasing orders from all over the world due to port strikes etc. arranging deliveries, building the furniture, keeping it clean, doing displays, constantly changing tickets, changing the light bulbs, sorting out any faulty goods and returns etc. dealing with the manufacturers and answering the phones, which we had to carry on us at all times and had to be answered within 3 rings no matter what. We had to do all this whilst trying to be happy, clean and smart and with constant pressure to reach targets. Also it's a long day as you have training before the shop opens and you don't finish until 8pm and not allowed any weekends or bank holidays off, so forget about family life if you've got young kids. But it can be fairly well paid but you don't have a great work/life balance. The only thing, I recall, that we didn't do was clean the windows...they missed a trick there :D
The simple answer to that then is that you include all the little jobs in your other employee's duties.
And the simple answer is often the wrong one
By your logic companies should have no reason to employ cleaners. They should sack their cleaning staff and terminate outside contracts. Everyone should be responsible for cleaning up after themselves.
So how do you propose to do that? Are you going to tell staff they have to stop work an hour earlier and pick up a mop? Or perhaps you'll extend the working day by an hour and tell everyone to do the cleaning then, before they go home?
And do you really think it makes sense to have someone who is normally paid several times minimum wage doing a job that can be done by someone on minimum wage. And if (as some, but not me have suggested) there is a segment of society only ever capable of minimum wage jobs you've just made them completely useless.
Let's look at a specific example. I'm nearly 50 years old. I have over 30 years experience in software development. I currently cost my employer over £30 an hour. Do you really think it's a good idea to have me spending some of my time wiping desks and mopping floors? You think that would be a good business decision?
One of the thinks I do remember from the 80s version of this is "Positive Outcomes".
The company did not get the full amount of money unless there was a positive outcome to the period - this meant more people got taken on - or were encouraged back into education.
Not in the world of employment it isn't. Free tea/coffee would be considered a bonus by a lot of people. Free or even discounted meals would be astonishing. And that's my point - you're still talking as if it's a normal part of employment and it isn't - certainly not the food anyway.
Well she'd still have to buy the food and drink if she was stuck at home and as I've posted before she is getting something out of the arrangement even if it's just a change of scenery and a chance to do something productive for someone else. One other thing she's learning is how employers treat employees and how a lot of their 'nice' gestures are actually cynical ploys to keep employees happy. Since she isn't an employee they don't bother trying to keep her happy so she can see the truth. That's a good lesson to learn as she begins her working life
The crap you have written that she isn't working for the supermarket and so therefore isn't entitled to the same perks as the permanent employees is highly disingenious. She has been forced to work at the supermarket, she is a forced employee and therefore the least they can do is give her the same discount they give everybody else, it should be free. One reason I'd never cope on JSA, I'd steal the food instead if I was subject to this same mean treatment, or get back at them in any other way possible.
Hopefully the story isn't real, but workfare exists, although companies have found it brings them unwelcome and negative attention.
You get paid £30 an hour and seem to have no sympathy for anyone who is poor, telling people that it's their fault that they have no skills that employers want, not everybody fits into the work culture.
Would you be happy to do workfare, instead of being paid £30 an hour?
The crap you have written that she isn't working for the supermarket and so therefore isn't entitled to the same perks as the permanent employees is highly disingenious.
No it isn't, it's fact. You're the one being disingenuous (and unhelpful to her cause) by trying to claim that she has entitlements to something she doesn't. You need to wise up and get this into her head. She is not an employee of the supermarket.
If you want her to get some kind of compensation for her work (as indeed do I ) you need to approach it within the framework of UK employment law. That means you have to understand that she is an outside contractor and is either:
* Employed by the government.
or
* Self-employed.
There is no point whittering on about the supermarket's obligations because it has almost none toward her other than basic health and safety.
In essence she is exactly like the cleaners my employer uses (as do many small companies). They are employed by an agency and are not entitled to use anything other than the electricity supply. Now as happens I doubt my employer would object to them getting a drink of water from the cooler and perhaps even making a cup of tea (although given the sporadic nature of milk purchasing here that could be an issue for other reasons) but that's as far as it goes. They work here but they are not employees.
Would you be happy to do workfare, instead of being paid £30 an hour?
Of course not. But what's that got to do with it? We're not talking about me we're talking about her (assuming she even exists).
I would like to see her get something for her trouble (I've said so at least once in this thread alread). It's just that unlike you I appear to have a glimmer of understanding of UK employment law so I would not be trying to pressure her to complain to the supermarket and nor would I be banding about words like 'discrimination'.
Comments
I think the OP said in a earlier post it was Tesco
Well she'd still have to buy the food and drink if she was stuck at home and as I've posted before she is getting something out of the arrangement even if it's just a change of scenery and a chance to do something productive for someone else. One other thing she's learning is how employers treat employees and how a lot of their 'nice' gestures are actually cynical ploys to keep employees happy. Since she isn't an employee they don't bother trying to keep her happy so she can see the truth. That's a good lesson to learn as she begins her working life
Absolutely. If you have jobs going, give the unpaid worker a real paid job . If you don't have vacancies, you're in it for the government bung.
Giving an extra person a cup of tea at break time isn't eating into any of the employer's profits, as their profits should come from the business they do, not the cashback workfare incentive from the government. If that's their only profit, they are essentially running a loss-making business paid for by the taxpayers.
I remember under Labour there was New Deal. Jobseekers had to do similar schemes but at least they had a choice of where to work and what type of work or training to do. In addition they got an extra £15 a week for taking part!
But the main rule under labour was that companies were not allowed to use Jobseekers simply as free labour, if the jobseeker did well enough they often got a real paid job at the end. With the Tory workfare firms are not obliged to give the jobseeker a real paid job and can continue taking batch after batch of workfare participants to exploit as free labour
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/420990/mandatory-work-activity-april-15.pdf#page20
See point 4.18
Its seems that the DWP is partly to blame. By saying that the 'Provider host must not give any incentives or rewards to the participant'
So the DWP doesn't think a jobseeker they have forced to work for well below the NMW should be allowed a discounted meal. Pretty underhand I'd say!
I might have missed you answering this because I've asked before and didn't see an answer but why can't she take a packed lunch?
Why should ANYONE work below the minimum wage?
People on benefits do not go out and spend £7 on one bloody meal - They'd go bust in no time.
Forced into a job of no interest or aptitude and a demeaning job that teaches you nothing. - So this girl now knows how to fold cardboard - That's f**king insulting!
Why should profit making companies get free labour under threats from the DWP?
It's punitive and designed to be so.
The Tory view is they'll say 'Sod it, I'll get a job."
I was a jobseeker under Thatcher - Employment Training - much the same as New Deal. i actually enjoyed doing it in some ways (I did have a good placement).
This 'friend' fits that bill quite nicely. Having clean kitchens and warehouse floors is nice for the employees but not essential to the business. Probably not worth paying someone minimum wage for.
If you were in charge what would you do? You have no budget to pay wages but your staff are whining about dirty kitchens and boxes cluttering the warehouse floor?
She should try finding a voluntary role. For example, you can volunteer with most charities in shops or in administrative roles. I do appreciate even this can be difficult to get at the moment, but it's worth a go! I volunteered with the NHS and got a lot of receptionist/admin experience when doing that.
I'd also suggest maybe seeing if she can arrange work experience with a local company, such as admin in a law firm or something. Just phone around some places and see if they are willing to take on a temporary volunteer. This is something my sister did when she was claiming and she successfully got a placement which led to a job when someone else left.
As for the original point, workfare should be stopped. I appreciate there may be terms preventing the supermarket from offering discounted lunches etc, but this system shouldn't be in place at all. Paying someone £70 or whatever for 30 hours work?! The lunches should be paid for with an extra allowance or don't send people off to work for nothing.
Ditto - I was on a scheme around 1990, dole plus £15 for 12 months. I was a p/t community minibus driver for pensioners, disabled, disadvantaged etc. I really enjoyed it.
When I finished, I got a job at Currys as a driver/installer. I was ahead of the other applicants - mainly because I'd been working. The boss actually said to me that he didn't take on unemployed, if at all possible, because they were unreliable. 'Don't want to get out of bed in the morning' was the phrase he used IIRC.
So - workfare has its benefits.
> my $0.02
I am yet to meet a single one.
So, there obviously is a mechanism to allow someone working there to get a discount as well, it all comes down to what the employer gets out if it, giving the police cheap food gets them a strong police presence, giving an unpaid worker cheap food benefits them in no way.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2015/06/26/capita_charges_cutlery_canteens/?_ga=1.88473883.1288655878.1425991407
I really appreciate all that you have suggested but you do realise none of it can be done, you do what the DWP says or get sanctioned, you want to volunteer they tell you where and who with.
Same with arrange work experience with a local company, unless they tell you what company you get sanctioned.
Well we are talking about a supermarket here, so they obviously have the money to pay wages. As I don't believe in workfare - although perhaps if I were an employer with no moral compass I may feel differently and fancy skimming the government for thousands of pounds - I would get an employee to do the job or hire a cleaner - most supermarkets have plenty of those. If they don't then they should have, there are plenty of unemployed people looking for PAID work
The simple answer to that then is that you include all the little jobs in your other employee's duties. Most staff have to keep their workplace clean so part of their duties include getting the mop out at the end of the day and taking out refuse and putting it in the appropriate bin. That's just standard work outside of office employment.
So there is no excuse for it.
When I worked in a furniture store we had to do everything. Cleaning the kitchen and the toilets as well as the shop floor. Also baking the cookies and keeping the coffee machine stocked. Had to do all this in between serving customers, doing credit agreements, ordering, chasing orders from all over the world due to port strikes etc. arranging deliveries, building the furniture, keeping it clean, doing displays, constantly changing tickets, changing the light bulbs, sorting out any faulty goods and returns etc. dealing with the manufacturers and answering the phones, which we had to carry on us at all times and had to be answered within 3 rings no matter what. We had to do all this whilst trying to be happy, clean and smart and with constant pressure to reach targets. Also it's a long day as you have training before the shop opens and you don't finish until 8pm and not allowed any weekends or bank holidays off, so forget about family life if you've got young kids. But it can be fairly well paid but you don't have a great work/life balance. The only thing, I recall, that we didn't do was clean the windows...they missed a trick there
By your logic companies should have no reason to employ cleaners. They should sack their cleaning staff and terminate outside contracts. Everyone should be responsible for cleaning up after themselves.
So how do you propose to do that? Are you going to tell staff they have to stop work an hour earlier and pick up a mop? Or perhaps you'll extend the working day by an hour and tell everyone to do the cleaning then, before they go home?
And do you really think it makes sense to have someone who is normally paid several times minimum wage doing a job that can be done by someone on minimum wage. And if (as some, but not me have suggested) there is a segment of society only ever capable of minimum wage jobs you've just made them completely useless.
Let's look at a specific example. I'm nearly 50 years old. I have over 30 years experience in software development. I currently cost my employer over £30 an hour. Do you really think it's a good idea to have me spending some of my time wiping desks and mopping floors? You think that would be a good business decision?
The company did not get the full amount of money unless there was a positive outcome to the period - this meant more people got taken on - or were encouraged back into education.
The crap you have written that she isn't working for the supermarket and so therefore isn't entitled to the same perks as the permanent employees is highly disingenious. She has been forced to work at the supermarket, she is a forced employee and therefore the least they can do is give her the same discount they give everybody else, it should be free. One reason I'd never cope on JSA, I'd steal the food instead if I was subject to this same mean treatment, or get back at them in any other way possible.
Hopefully the story isn't real, but workfare exists, although companies have found it brings them unwelcome and negative attention.
You get paid £30 an hour and seem to have no sympathy for anyone who is poor, telling people that it's their fault that they have no skills that employers want, not everybody fits into the work culture.
Would you be happy to do workfare, instead of being paid £30 an hour?
If you want her to get some kind of compensation for her work (as indeed do I ) you need to approach it within the framework of UK employment law. That means you have to understand that she is an outside contractor and is either:
* Employed by the government.
or
* Self-employed.
There is no point whittering on about the supermarket's obligations because it has almost none toward her other than basic health and safety.
In essence she is exactly like the cleaners my employer uses (as do many small companies). They are employed by an agency and are not entitled to use anything other than the electricity supply. Now as happens I doubt my employer would object to them getting a drink of water from the cooler and perhaps even making a cup of tea (although given the sporadic nature of milk purchasing here that could be an issue for other reasons) but that's as far as it goes. They work here but they are not employees.
Of course not. But what's that got to do with it? We're not talking about me we're talking about her (assuming she even exists).
I would like to see her get something for her trouble (I've said so at least once in this thread alread). It's just that unlike you I appear to have a glimmer of understanding of UK employment law so I would not be trying to pressure her to complain to the supermarket and nor would I be banding about words like 'discrimination'.
If you don't do it, you starve and lose your housing benefit!