You could highlight that you worked in a team. You could highlight that you learnt customer service skills if you're on the shop floor restocking a shelf while the shop is open and someone asks you a question. You could highlight that you were required to 'manage' the shelf you were stacking by ensuring there were no out of date products and making sure they were all presentable etc. Making sure none were damaged etc.
Granted there is a limited skill set involved and some may say that's just making a manual labour task sound more important than it actually is. But you can either try to find positives in these things or you can simply give up and do the minimum required and get no where.
And I do firmly believe that even if you've stacked a shelf.. that's more attractive to an employer than someone who has given the impression they'd been at home watching Jeremy Kyle out of choice.
The former CEO of tesco Sir Terry Leahy started by stacking shelves.
I guarantee anyone smart enough to spin a shelf-stacking job into that kind of job interview spiel doesn't need to be on workfare in the first place. The scheme isn't designed for people like them.
And I do firmly believe that even if you've stacked a shelf.. that's more attractive to an employer than someone who has given the impression they'd been at home watching Jeremy Kyle out of choice.
Problem is if everyone is being made to do it, as a job seeker you are still in no better position than any other Tom, Dick or Harry.
The other problem they are up against is that there will be people going for jobs with lots more experience, it really is an employers market out there.
You will never make someone work who does not want to work, all those who do want to work will be doing whatever they can anyway to skill up.
The job centre will force them on these schemes, they will force them to apply for jobs but they will go out of their way not to get the jobs.
All that is happening is that they feel they are being pushed about by the state, threatened with sanctions and treated with contempt. That is the last thing that will give an idle person, or any person motivation. Ok it might pacify the Great British Public but it aint going to give people work ethic.
Problem is if everyone is being made to do it, as a job seeker you are still in no better position than any other Tom, Dick or Harry.
The other problem they are up against is that there will be people going for jobs with lots more experience, it really is an employers market out there.
You will never make someone work who does not want to work, all those who do want to work will be doing whatever they can anyway to skill up.
The job centre will force them on these schemes, they will force them to apply for jobs but they will go out of their way not to get the jobs.
All that is happening is that they feel they are being pushed about by the state, threatened with sanctions and treated with contempt. That is the last thing that will give an idle person, or any person motivation. Ok it might pacify the Great British Public but it aint going to give people work ethic.
Whats the alternative? just give up on these people? Im not happy with that.
What's the alternative? Sat on the sofa at home watching Jeremy Kyle slowly losing all your confidence and having no mental stimulation at all? I think I'd rather be out doing a job even if I wasn't being paid for the work and simply received my normal benefits. What else would I be doing with my time?
I see it as an opportunity and with most opportunities in life... you get out of them what you put into them. If they simply go along with the scheme, put in the minimal amount of effort required and expect a job to land on their laps at the end.. they're going to be disappointed.
But if they work hard... update their CV to include all their newly learnt skills and experience.. perhaps ask their manager to write them a note of recommendation and then send this to every local DIY place in the area that they can reach... they might get their foot in the door.
It's a brutal world out of there. Work experience is valuable, even if you're not paid for it.
They could use their time to find a proper well paid job.
I'm not against people working, but they should be paid at least the national minimum wage to do it, there needs to be motivation to work, and for many working for your dole isn't it. If people feel that they need experience to help them find a job, then they can do voluntary work, nobody should be forced to work for their dole money, those who don't want to work probably wouldn't turn up for it anyway and firms like Homebase shouldn't be allowed to abuse the scheme by creating jobs which don't exist.
The people who have no drive to work can't be fixed, but they're just a fraction of the currently unemployed.
My problem with workfare is that it distorts the market - they're undoubtedly many people willing to do full-time menial labour at a fair wage that now can't, because a bunch of other people are being forced to do it for next to nothing. Once we go beyond this naive view of what workfare should be, the only people I really see benefitting in reality are large corporations.
Whats the alternative? just give up on these people? Im not happy with that.
Me neither but getting them to do this programme by way of threats is not going to get them in work and it is potentially taking jobs away from those who genuinely do want to work.
as much as I despise shirkers my concern has to be with those that want to work and provisions to help them first.
Me neither but getting them to do this programme by way of threats is not going to get them in work and it is potentially taking jobs away from those who genuinely do want to work.
as much as I despise shirkers my concern has to be with those that want to work and provisions to help them first.
Agree with that. The schemes for these types of people are not ideal, but still provide an opportunity to fill career gaps on CV's, keep the illusion of pro-activeness alive when presenting to prospective employers. I would welcome more tailored places, other industries getting involved offering a greater variety of placements. They will likely be scared off by the boycott campaigners however.
I would argue every job has skills to learn. Even stacking a shelf.
Of course, but stacking shelves -- does that benefit the companies themselves or the person? Especially when it is classed as "work experience". It's a job, therefore people should be expected to get paid.
Yeah you gain customer service skills, but as I said two years ago in a similar thread you should already be gaining that by interacting with folk everyday. Free labour should only serve the community, like cleaning parks and the voluntary sector.
Speaking as a former employee I can say for a fact that it was common place to have the workforce run on a shoe-string, by which I mean many of my colleagues had their hours cut down to the minimum (many going from full to part-time) and relied on overtime to cover their bills. If there was no spare overtime you would have to try and sort something out with another colleague or find another job.
One day the team leader of my department left suddenly on stress and never came back, leaving myself and 2 other colleagues with all her workload on top of our own with no real assistance from senior management. When I left for another job a few months later her post still hadn't been advertised despite her in-tray getting taller and taller. A new bloke had been drafted in from another store to take over my role and I had to give him a crash course on how to use the software and basically do the job. I had no objections to providing him training in exceptional circumstances (there was supposed to be a training coordinator after-all) but felt pretty awful for the guy since I could see he was about to be launched completely into the deep end.
I stayed in touch with a few of my colleagues after leaving. Speaking to them a few more months down the line the morale was at rock-bottom, staff were being spread as thinly as possible and there was a huge amount of uncertainty about job-security.
tl;dr version:
The staff are treated like crap by head office and I'm not remotely surprised HRG have resorted to "free labour" to account for their staffing issues.
I would also advise anyone thinking of causing a scene not to do so at the stores since it's basically just rubbing salt into the wounds of people who are also losing out because of this descision.
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.
If you want people to supply labour, so that you can profit from that labour, you should pay for it. Otherwise you have a slave workforce, exploited to provide profits, at no cost, to the company.
I think it is ok. That doesn't mean I wouldn't change it though. That's not contradicting myself.
I think we all know this, but that is how they work and that's how they have worked for years. I don't think it's a valid opinion that workfare is taking up jobs and companys are using free labour instead of paying people to do it. As I pointed out comapnys have been running on minimum staff for years. Companys are taking advantage of the free labour to help out, not to cover paid work, that's the way I see it.
There is plenty of evidence around the web of Workfare claimants replacing paid staff, or existing paid staff having their hours cut because of free labour.
If a company has work that needs to be done, then they should take on paid staff. It's that simple.
Some companies ARE taking this free pool of labour to cover paid work. That benefits no one other than the company bottom line. It doesn't benefit the unemployed and it doesn't benefit the existing staff.
Me neither but getting them to do this programme by way of threats is not going to get them in work and it is potentially taking jobs away from those who genuinely do want to work.
as much as I despise shirkers my concern has to be with those that want to work and provisions to help them first.
Absolutely, and is what I said in another thread.
We are in the midst of the biggest recession in 100 years. The government need to change tact, let's concentrate on those who DO want to work at present. Provide placements that are paid and/or provide proper, accredited and recognised qualifications. Open up placements to many more companies and organisations not just retail, an industry notorious for low pay and one of the hardest hit areas in this recession. Give those unemployed who want to work the best possible chances first.
Once the bulk of us have been dealt with they can then start concentrating on those who don't want or blindly refuse to work.
We are in the midst of the biggest recession in 100 years. The government need to change tact, let's concentrate on those who DO want to work at present. Provide placements that are paid and/or provide proper, accredited and recognised qualifications. Open up placements to many more companies and organisations not just retail, an industry notorious for low pay and one of the hardest hit areas in this recession. Give those unemployed who want to work the best possible chances first.
Once the bulk of us have been dealt with they can then start concentrating on those who don't want or blindly refuse to work.
The cynic in me might think that retail is used as it is threatened by the recession and it is the governments method of helping to keep them above water, by bringing down their wage bill. Every little helps:D
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.
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.
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.
What's wrong with companies trying to keep wages down?
They wont answer the simple question "Are you using workfare in your stores?" they are lying about not using workfare, they 100% are using workfare, do not believe their lies.
We are in the midst of the biggest recession in 100 years. The government need to change tact, let's concentrate on those who DO want to work at present. Provide placements that are paid and/or provide proper, accredited and recognised qualifications. Open up placements to many more companies and organisations not just retail, an industry notorious for low pay and one of the hardest hit areas in this recession. Give those unemployed who want to work the best possible chances first.
Once the bulk of us have been dealt with they can then start concentrating on those who don't want or blindly refuse to work.
Comments
The former CEO of tesco Sir Terry Leahy started by stacking shelves.
http://www.retailgazette.co.uk/articles/from-shelf-stacker-to-ceo
Problem is if everyone is being made to do it, as a job seeker you are still in no better position than any other Tom, Dick or Harry.
The other problem they are up against is that there will be people going for jobs with lots more experience, it really is an employers market out there.
You will never make someone work who does not want to work, all those who do want to work will be doing whatever they can anyway to skill up.
The job centre will force them on these schemes, they will force them to apply for jobs but they will go out of their way not to get the jobs.
All that is happening is that they feel they are being pushed about by the state, threatened with sanctions and treated with contempt. That is the last thing that will give an idle person, or any person motivation. Ok it might pacify the Great British Public but it aint going to give people work ethic.
Whats the alternative? just give up on these people? Im not happy with that.
I'm not against people working, but they should be paid at least the national minimum wage to do it, there needs to be motivation to work, and for many working for your dole isn't it. If people feel that they need experience to help them find a job, then they can do voluntary work, nobody should be forced to work for their dole money, those who don't want to work probably wouldn't turn up for it anyway and firms like Homebase shouldn't be allowed to abuse the scheme by creating jobs which don't exist.
My problem with workfare is that it distorts the market - they're undoubtedly many people willing to do full-time menial labour at a fair wage that now can't, because a bunch of other people are being forced to do it for next to nothing. Once we go beyond this naive view of what workfare should be, the only people I really see benefitting in reality are large corporations.
Me neither but getting them to do this programme by way of threats is not going to get them in work and it is potentially taking jobs away from those who genuinely do want to work.
as much as I despise shirkers my concern has to be with those that want to work and provisions to help them first.
Agree with that. The schemes for these types of people are not ideal, but still provide an opportunity to fill career gaps on CV's, keep the illusion of pro-activeness alive when presenting to prospective employers. I would welcome more tailored places, other industries getting involved offering a greater variety of placements. They will likely be scared off by the boycott campaigners however.
https://twitter.com/search?q=homebase_uk
Yeah you gain customer service skills, but as I said two years ago in a similar thread you should already be gaining that by interacting with folk everyday. Free labour should only serve the community, like cleaning parks and the voluntary sector.
One day the team leader of my department left suddenly on stress and never came back, leaving myself and 2 other colleagues with all her workload on top of our own with no real assistance from senior management. When I left for another job a few months later her post still hadn't been advertised despite her in-tray getting taller and taller. A new bloke had been drafted in from another store to take over my role and I had to give him a crash course on how to use the software and basically do the job. I had no objections to providing him training in exceptional circumstances (there was supposed to be a training coordinator after-all) but felt pretty awful for the guy since I could see he was about to be launched completely into the deep end.
I stayed in touch with a few of my colleagues after leaving. Speaking to them a few more months down the line the morale was at rock-bottom, staff were being spread as thinly as possible and there was a huge amount of uncertainty about job-security.
tl;dr version:
The staff are treated like crap by head office and I'm not remotely surprised HRG have resorted to "free labour" to account for their staffing issues.
I would also advise anyone thinking of causing a scene not to do so at the stores since it's basically just rubbing salt into the wounds of people who are also losing out because of this descision.
If you want people to supply labour, so that you can profit from that labour, you should pay for it. Otherwise you have a slave workforce, exploited to provide profits, at no cost, to the company.
There is plenty of evidence around the web of Workfare claimants replacing paid staff, or existing paid staff having their hours cut because of free labour.
If a company has work that needs to be done, then they should take on paid staff. It's that simple.
Some companies ARE taking this free pool of labour to cover paid work. That benefits no one other than the company bottom line. It doesn't benefit the unemployed and it doesn't benefit the existing staff.
Absolutely, and is what I said in another thread.
We are in the midst of the biggest recession in 100 years. The government need to change tact, let's concentrate on those who DO want to work at present. Provide placements that are paid and/or provide proper, accredited and recognised qualifications. Open up placements to many more companies and organisations not just retail, an industry notorious for low pay and one of the hardest hit areas in this recession. Give those unemployed who want to work the best possible chances first.
Once the bulk of us have been dealt with they can then start concentrating on those who don't want or blindly refuse to work.
The cynic in me might think that retail is used as it is threatened by the recession and it is the governments method of helping to keep them above water, by bringing down their wage bill. Every little helps:D
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-cap-1.pdf
And from experience, you can be fast-tracked onto a workfare programme.
Under Labour's New Deal, workfare was six months and up to a year from experience:
http://www.delni.gov.uk/nd18-24_final_report_01-10-01.doc
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rjgeuk - https://twitter.com/Homebase_uk
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.
Keep up to date with Boycott Workfare - http://www.boycottworkfare.org/ - https://twitter.com/boycottworkfare
political speak about not having a policy lol
Let me guess, you have to buy some DIY supplies in the next few days, or you went to Homebase today to buy supplies?
How is your currysocks blog going?
What's wrong with companies trying to keep wages down?
I think this idiot is being f*ckin' serious.
https://www.facebook.com/homebase
They wont answer the simple question "Are you using workfare in your stores?" they are lying about not using workfare, they 100% are using workfare, do not believe their lies.
IDS has stated that the benefit reforms are NOT about saving any money at all.
So why has he and others too, been telling us all along this is about saving money?.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ids-welfare-reforms-wont-cut-benefit-bill-051116124.html#v7XfUyM
Is it too much to expect politicians to, just for once in their lives, be actually honest.
Some good ideas in that lot.