No what I'm saying is she is only getting £72 a week JSA that's about £2.40 per hour for work.
How is she expected to afford £8 a day for lunch plus a £1 for tea or coffee during break?
She can bring her own food with her surely? She would have to eat regardless of whether she was there or not.
We had job seekers working in my old workplace, I think the arrangement in NI is slightly better than the one in England and they actually got free meals and their milage paid or bus tickets refunded which none of the paid staff got. They also got childcare costs covered and an extra £15 each week. The only thing our workplace funded was the free meal but we did hire the majority of people who were on the scheme after their time was up, the ones who weren't hired were useless.
Doesn't sound like your friend is having a pleasant experience
I don't think workfare works because forcing someone to work and placing them into a situation where they are exploited and discriminated against is hardly going to make them want to work and give them a positive experience about the world of work.
Sounds like Tesco
You still don't seem to grasp the point that the cheap food and free drinks are part of a salary package that the supermarket offers its employees. This person is not employed by the supermarket - she is an outside contractor. As a result she is not entitled to benefit from the package.
Whether or not she should be forced to work there for 'nothing' is a separate issue. Personally I think she (and others) should see it as an opportunity to put something on their CV and maybe even a chance to become an employee of the company. It'd be nice if they got some kind of remuneration (perhaps a bonus over and above JSA) but it's a complex issue that needs more thought.
Bottom line: It might not be fair but it isn't discrimination because no-one is withholding or denying her access to something she is entitled to. She has no entitlement to it in the first place.
No what I'm saying is she is only getting £72 a week JSA that's about £2.40 per hour for work.
How is she expected to afford £8 a day for lunch plus a £1 for tea or coffee during break?
Secondly she didn't even want to be working there! She had specifically requested work experience as a receptionist as most admin jobs she applied for requested such experience.
I dont know much about this but I assume you have to be on job seekers a fair while before they make you do this workfare thing?
if so and she has been unemployed a while she should be grateful of the chance to get out and actually work, and get something on her cv to help get a permanent job
I dont know much about this but I assume you have to be on job seekers a fair while before they make you do this workfare thing?
if so and she has been unemployed a while she should be grateful of the chance to get out and actually work, and get something on her cv to help get a permanent job
beggers can't be choosers and all that
Workfare participants are chosen randomly often after 13 weeks of being in JSA but workfare can be used at any stage from week 1. Unless the Jobseeker is on Work program.
Workfare is different to The Work program which Jobseekers do after 9 months on JSA or 6 months if under 25. Work program is far more flexible.
However the Jobcentre make sure Workfare takes priority over the Work Program as some people after 9 months have been deferred from Work-program so they are forced to do the unpleasant Workfare.
It may be legally correct that the company doesn't have to provide the Workfare 'employee' with a discounted meal because they aren't staff, for whom this is an additional benefit of their employment.
However, let's not forget that these employers also receive a payment from the government (and therefore the taxpayer) as an incentive to take on Workfare workers. They make a profit from it.
It therefore would be the humane thing to do to allow them, if not the full discount, some kind of discount or at least offer them a sandwich and let them have a cup of tea at break time.
After all, if - as some have said here - they then go on to employ some of those on Workfare, it means they are doing a decent job in an extended version of a trial period, so why not show a little humanity for those working (and well in some cases from posts above) for far less than the legal minimum wage.
I dont know much about this but I assume you have to be on job seekers a fair while before they make you do this workfare thing?
if so and she has been unemployed a while she should be grateful of the chance to get out and actually work, and get something on her cv to help get a permanent job
beggers can't be choosers and all that
Most workfare placements don't lead to a permanent job. It's just exploitive to the worker, while the company gets free labour.
Does she get her fares and a meal allowance paid by the job centre?
I know when I was on one of their 'courses' for a while the people attending did. It wasn't a lot but it was something. Mind you this was a long time ago. She shouldn't be out of pocket I would have thought.
Coach drivers can get a meal for 1p at Moto irrespective of how much the meal costs and get vouchers for the shop too. And they don't even work for Moto!
Why do you think that is?
The coach drivers club states clearly that when you visit a Moto service station "in a working capacity and with passengers" you can claim a meal for 1p. If there are more than 25 passengers you can claim a shop voucher for £1
Essentially they are "paying" the drivers to bring them lots of paying customers.
It may be legally correct that the company doesn't have to provide the Workfare 'employee' with a discounted meal because they aren't staff, for whom this is an additional benefit of their employment.
However, let's not forget that these employers also receive a payment from the government (and therefore the taxpayer) as an incentive to take on Workfare workers. They make a profit from it.
It therefore would be the humane thing to do to allow them, if not the full discount, some kind of discount or at least offer them a sandwich and let them have a cup of tea at break time.
True but let's say it amounts to £5 a day (food and drinks). That increases the cost of each workfare worker by £25 a week. Who picks up the tab for that?
It's either the taxpayer (you and I) or the supermarket which reduces the profit you are referring to. Given how low JSA already is and the nature of the work that's being done that might wipe out any profit. Or maybe it comes out of the general budget for employee wages so the employed staff end up paying for free lunches for the workfare staff.
And where do you stop? If you're going to give them staff discounts then what about staff gym membership. Staff pension contributions. Staff healthcare?
There is already a precedent for dealing with these issues and it is a long established procedure. As I wrote in my previous reply the 'friend' is an outside contractor and outside contractors are not paid by the entity they are working for(*). The way to look at it this is to understand that the 'friend' is no more entitled to free lunches than a BT or gas engineer who is there fixing the telephones or maintaining appliances.
(*)Obviously they are in a sense but what typically happens is that the contractor submits an invoice for the work they've done (usually through a company they've set up for tax reasons) and then it's up to them how they pay themselves.
True but let's say it amounts to £5 a day (food and drinks). That increases the cost of each workfare worker by £25 a week. Who picks up the tab for that?
It's either the taxpayer (you and I) or the supermarket which reduces the profit you are referring to. Given how low JSA already is and the nature of the work that's being done that might wipe out any profit. Or maybe it comes out of the general budget for employee wages so the employed staff end up paying for free lunches for the workfare staff.
And where do you stop? If you're going to give them staff discounts then what about staff gym membership. Staff pension contributions. Staff healthcare?
There is already a precedent for dealing with these issues and it is a long established procedure. As I wrote in my previous reply the 'friend' is an outside contractor and outside contractors are not paid by the entity they are working for(*). The way to look at it this is to understand that the 'friend' is no more entitled to free lunches than a BT or gas engineer who is there fixing the telephones or maintaining appliances.
(*)Obviously they are in a sense but what typically happens is that the contractor submits an invoice for the work they've done (usually through a company they've set up for tax reasons) and then it's up to them how they pay themselves.
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.
Years ago |I worked as a secretary for a major retail firm. The 'perks' package was amazing: pension, shares, BUPA, subsidised canteen, and a couple of other things I forgot. Whilst the canteen subsidy kicked in immediately, on Day 1, I had to be there for two years to qualify for the other benefits. I quite understood that, so it was no problem, and it applied to all non-managerial staff, whether shop-floor or back-office.
I can't see any company nowadays employing staff on a package of all that that kicks on Day 1, so there will be plenty of people not yet eligible for it all who are sharing that canteen with your pal, yet still getting the subsidised meals.
But anyway, regardless of company policy, it's embarrassing for your pal to be put on the spot like that. It should have been made clear before she got to the pay point or before she even started. She could then have made her own arrangements for lunch. I did a Workfare-type placement (years and years ago), and I well remember the agonies of embarrassment because I couldn't afford to be as groomed as the permanent employees were, never mind being treated like your pal was.
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.
I bet that 90% of the UK's workforce has to provide or pay full price for their food. I've been working over 30 years and the most I've ever had is free milk and tea. Never food and never soft drinks either. Even pouring the provided milk over self-provided cereals can result in passive aggressive emails from HR.
What we're talking about here is a relatively uncommon perk. Something over and above what most employees would expect. As I keep saying - this friend is an outside contractor. They work for someone else. The supermarket has no responsibility whatsoever to feed and water them.
What's so special about someone on workfare that entitles them to free meals? My experience tells me they are people who have failed to obtain a valuable skill that employers want and consequently are struggling to find a placement. That's sad but I don't see why it entitles them to something that most people who do have useful skills don't get.
And..you didn't answer my question. Where is the money going to come from to pay for these perks. Answer that question and I might feel it worthwhile continuing the discussion.
Workfare participants are chosen randomly often after 13 weeks of being in JSA but workfare can be used at any stage from week 1. Unless the Jobseeker is on Work program.
Workfare is different to The Work program which Jobseekers do after 9 months on JSA or 6 months if under 25. Work program is far more flexible.
However the Jobcentre make sure Workfare takes priority over the Work Program as some people after 9 months have been deferred from Work-program so they are forced to do the unpleasant Workfare.
and how long does this workfare programme last?
are you sure its random and not just people with no work experience or little that are made to do it?
surely they are better off with jsa and the other perks like housing and council tax benefits over being paid min wage and having to pay rent and council tax ?
I do agree with other comments tho as they are not directly employed by the supermarket then why should they subsidise the food.
Years ago |I worked as a secretary for a major retail firm. The 'perks' package was amazing: pension, shares, BUPA, subsidised canteen, and a couple of other things I forgot. Whilst the canteen subsidy kicked in immediately, on Day 1, I had to be there for two years to qualify for the other benefits. I quite understood that, so it was no problem, and it applied to all non-managerial staff, whether shop-floor or back-office.
I can't see any company nowadays employing staff on a package of all that that kicks on Day 1, so there will be plenty of people not yet eligible for it all who are sharing that canteen with your pal, yet still getting the subsidised meals.
But anyway, regardless of company policy, it's embarrassing for your pal to be put on the spot like that. It should have been made clear before she got to the pay point or before she even started. She could then have made her own arrangements for lunch. I did a Workfare-type placement (years and years ago), and I well remember the agonies of embarrassment because I couldn't afford to be as groomed as the permanent employees were, never mind being treated like your pal was.
guess it depends what type of company/industry you work in, we get all the benefits you mention with pension and share buying kicking in after the end of your probation period.
guess it depends what type of company/industry you work in, we get all the benefits you mention with pension and share buying kicking in after the end of your probation period.
only thing we don't get is subsidised food:(
Aye, you're right, but M&S was considered to be one of the best back then, in terms of employee care. I'm not disagreeing - things do change, I know that, and it's great that yours kicked in after probation.
I didn't always get subsidised food in my working life - most of the time I didn't, but M&S was different back then.
Aye, you're right, but M&S was considered to be one of the best back then, in terms of employee care. I'm not disagreeing - things do change, I know that, and it's great that yours kicked in after probation.
I didn't always get subsidised food in my working life - most of the time I didn't, but M&S was different back then.
ahh thats my problem then not working in retail.
we get fed at confrences and seminars and the odd meal out and we have rules you can claim breakfast on expenses if you are travelling a long way to clients.
I guess in big retail places having a cheap canteen means staff are less likely to wander off the premises and therefore not be late back into work
the job centre/dwp and supermarket are both to blame here. The former for forcing her into that situation and the latter for being greedy accepting free labour from her but not providing her with tea/coffee and lunch everyday. Workfare is a scam
the job centre/dwp and supermarket are both to blame here. The former for forcing her into that situation and the latter for being greedy accepting free labour from her but not providing her with tea/coffee and lunch everyday. Workfare is a scam
Meh. She's getting work experience and a change of scenery. She might even possibly get a job out of it. Back in the 80s when I was unemployed for a while I'd have relished the opportunity just to get out and meet people and to at least feel like I was doing something productive.
Speaking as someone who has, on occasion, been involved in hiring decisions I would think more of someone who stuck through a crappy situation like hers and made the most of it. Yes it's shit..but so are a lot of jobs at least some of the time. The last thing I'd want to do is take on someone who whines when things aren't going their way. But someone who can shrug it off and tough it out is someone I want on my team.
I do agree that some kind of payment would be nice but I don't understand why people are going on about free food. Very few employers provide food for their workforce. It's generally assumed that staff will make their own arrangements. Moan about the lack of money by all means but you're not going to get anywhere whining about free lunches. As I wrote in my last reply I bet less than 10% of the UK workforce gets lunch provided for it. It just isn't 'normal'.
And..you didn't answer my question. Where is the money going to come from to pay for these perks. Answer that question and I might feel it worthwhile continuing the discussion.
1) In a lot of cases companies choose 'workfare' to solve manpower shortages without having to pay for staff. So the firm is getting all jobs done and saving a lot of money.
A workfare participant is compelled to work for a minimum of 30 hrs a week. If the company employed a paid staff member to do this they'd be paying them £195 per week NMW. I'm sure from saving themselves £195 in wages they could afford £5 a day in food and light refreshments. Its moral common courtesy not an obligation. I think £25 per week in food and refreshments is still far cheaper than £195
In the ideal world workfare participants if they do well should be offered a real job at the end but this seldom ever happens, because companies want the next batch of free labour.
2) Being a supermarket they get food in bulk and mass produced. I doubt that a plate of spag bol or pie and chips, with a cup of tea made from an economy tea bag worth less than 1p would even cost them £5 in ingredients and labour making it. I certainly doubt that the £7.99 for a meal my friend was charged would be even worth that. Probably less than £2.50 more like!
Its fair enough to charge customers that as that's business but not very courteous or nice to charge a young woman on only £72 a week JSA who is helping the supermarket.
3) If it was the DWP Jobcentre partly to blame by forbidding companies from giving reward financial, material or otherwise to Workfare participants, then that's pretty underhand of them. They force people onto these schemes with threat of 6 months loss of all benefits if they fail to comply. And this young woman was more than happy to do workfare but as a receptionist but was told she could not choose.
I know under social security laws any reward results in a change of circumstances for the claimant but I don't see how a reduced price meal as reward should affect their benefit entitlement!
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.
does this woman even have any job experience of working as areceptionist?
sorry, but your posts sound like she is jobless with a lack of real work experience and she thinks being unemployed she can just choose a new career and she thinks being a receptionist is it.
maybe they couldnt get her a reception job due to lack of experience.
does this woman even have any job experience of working as areceptionist?
sorry, but your posts sound like she is jobless with a lack of real work experience and she thinks being unemployed she can just choose a new career and she thinks being a receptionist is it.
maybe they couldnt get her a reception job due to lack of experience.
what have her previous jobs been?
She did work as a seasonal receptionist at a caravan park a few years ago but most jobs she applied for wanted more experience. She asked the job centre on several occasions if she could do unpaid work experience as a receptionist until she was put on to Mandatory Work Activity (Workfare) She got a referral letter telling her she must report to this supermarket. She was later told that she had no choice in the type of work or place of work.
Even at the supermarket she asked if she could do some admin work for them, but had this fairly rude supervisor who she was under and made sure she stayed in the warehouse getting rid of cardboard boxes, sweeping up, cleaning staff areas including staff toilets. She wasn't even allowed near the customer areas. Once when she asked about checkout work she got a sarcastic no. So she didn't even get any customer care experience!
Afterwards with the supermarket ordeal on her CV she still applies for over 25 jobs a week including retail with no luck and no where nearer been given reception or admin work. As a ref for her work all she got was postcard confirming she had done 4 weeks with them.
What was the point?? She's still living off the tax payer and no closer to a real job.
She did work as a seasonal receptionist at a caravan park a few years ago but most jobs she applied for wanted more experience. She asked the job centre on several occasions if she could do work experience as a receptionist until she was put on to Mandatory Work Activity (Workfare) She got a referral letter telling her she must report to this supermarket. She was later told that she had no choice in the type of work or place of work.
Even at the supermarket she asked if she could do some admin work, but had this fairly rude supervisor who she was under made sure she stayed in the warehouse getting rid of cardboard boxes, sweeping up, cleaning staff areas including staff toilets. She wasn't even allowed near the customer areas. Once when she asked about checkout work she got a sarcastic no.
Afterwards with the supermarket ordeal on her CV she still applies for over 25 jobs a week including retail with no luck and no where nearer been given reception or admin work. As a ref for her work all she got was postcard confirming she had done 4 weeks with them.
What was the point?? She's still living off the tax payer and no closer to a real job.
so like I thought no real experience.
so does the job centre not pay for her to train like computer courses or something that would help her get a job?
Are the majority of the 25 jobs admin/reception type jobs?
how old is she? is she young enough to do an apprenticeship? or she needs to look for a trainee position. i think she needs to get in touch with a recruitment agent with her cv and they will be honest onher chances of getting an admin job, they may even help her find one or tell her what she needs to do to become attractive to employers.
at the moment the job market is a employers dream cos they can pick the candidates that fit very strict criteria due to the number of applications for every job. it is much easier when the job market is in the job seekers favour.
Comments
She can bring her own food with her surely? She would have to eat regardless of whether she was there or not.
We had job seekers working in my old workplace, I think the arrangement in NI is slightly better than the one in England and they actually got free meals and their milage paid or bus tickets refunded which none of the paid staff got. They also got childcare costs covered and an extra £15 each week. The only thing our workplace funded was the free meal but we did hire the majority of people who were on the scheme after their time was up, the ones who weren't hired were useless.
I don't think workfare works because forcing someone to work and placing them into a situation where they are exploited and discriminated against is hardly going to make them want to work and give them a positive experience about the world of work.
Sounds like Tesco
very well put
I dont know much about this but I assume you have to be on job seekers a fair while before they make you do this workfare thing?
if so and she has been unemployed a while she should be grateful of the chance to get out and actually work, and get something on her cv to help get a permanent job
beggers can't be choosers and all that
OP registered in April and has already racked up over 500 interesting posts. Never a great sign.
(oh and claims to have made the exact same post on another forum.. because that's not at all unusual and suspicious)
Workfare participants are chosen randomly often after 13 weeks of being in JSA but workfare can be used at any stage from week 1. Unless the Jobseeker is on Work program.
Workfare is different to The Work program which Jobseekers do after 9 months on JSA or 6 months if under 25. Work program is far more flexible.
However the Jobcentre make sure Workfare takes priority over the Work Program as some people after 9 months have been deferred from Work-program so they are forced to do the unpleasant Workfare.
However, let's not forget that these employers also receive a payment from the government (and therefore the taxpayer) as an incentive to take on Workfare workers. They make a profit from it.
It therefore would be the humane thing to do to allow them, if not the full discount, some kind of discount or at least offer them a sandwich and let them have a cup of tea at break time.
After all, if - as some have said here - they then go on to employ some of those on Workfare, it means they are doing a decent job in an extended version of a trial period, so why not show a little humanity for those working (and well in some cases from posts above) for far less than the legal minimum wage.
"Giving evidence, senior civil servant Jennifer Bradley confirmed that numerous charities and businesses were receiving cash payments as an incentive to take on the unemployed." http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/03/dwp-benefits-electrician-work-placement-labour
I know when I was on one of their 'courses' for a while the people attending did. It wasn't a lot but it was something. Mind you this was a long time ago. She shouldn't be out of pocket I would have thought.
Why do you think that is?
The coach drivers club states clearly that when you visit a Moto service station "in a working capacity and with passengers" you can claim a meal for 1p. If there are more than 25 passengers you can claim a shop voucher for £1
Essentially they are "paying" the drivers to bring them lots of paying customers.
It's either the taxpayer (you and I) or the supermarket which reduces the profit you are referring to. Given how low JSA already is and the nature of the work that's being done that might wipe out any profit. Or maybe it comes out of the general budget for employee wages so the employed staff end up paying for free lunches for the workfare staff.
And where do you stop? If you're going to give them staff discounts then what about staff gym membership. Staff pension contributions. Staff healthcare?
There is already a precedent for dealing with these issues and it is a long established procedure. As I wrote in my previous reply the 'friend' is an outside contractor and outside contractors are not paid by the entity they are working for(*). The way to look at it this is to understand that the 'friend' is no more entitled to free lunches than a BT or gas engineer who is there fixing the telephones or maintaining appliances.
(*)Obviously they are in a sense but what typically happens is that the contractor submits an invoice for the work they've done (usually through a company they've set up for tax reasons) and then it's up to them how they pay themselves.
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.
Years ago |I worked as a secretary for a major retail firm. The 'perks' package was amazing: pension, shares, BUPA, subsidised canteen, and a couple of other things I forgot. Whilst the canteen subsidy kicked in immediately, on Day 1, I had to be there for two years to qualify for the other benefits. I quite understood that, so it was no problem, and it applied to all non-managerial staff, whether shop-floor or back-office.
I can't see any company nowadays employing staff on a package of all that that kicks on Day 1, so there will be plenty of people not yet eligible for it all who are sharing that canteen with your pal, yet still getting the subsidised meals.
But anyway, regardless of company policy, it's embarrassing for your pal to be put on the spot like that. It should have been made clear before she got to the pay point or before she even started. She could then have made her own arrangements for lunch. I did a Workfare-type placement (years and years ago), and I well remember the agonies of embarrassment because I couldn't afford to be as groomed as the permanent employees were, never mind being treated like your pal was.
What we're talking about here is a relatively uncommon perk. Something over and above what most employees would expect. As I keep saying - this friend is an outside contractor. They work for someone else. The supermarket has no responsibility whatsoever to feed and water them.
What's so special about someone on workfare that entitles them to free meals? My experience tells me they are people who have failed to obtain a valuable skill that employers want and consequently are struggling to find a placement. That's sad but I don't see why it entitles them to something that most people who do have useful skills don't get.
And..you didn't answer my question. Where is the money going to come from to pay for these perks. Answer that question and I might feel it worthwhile continuing the discussion.
and how long does this workfare programme last?
are you sure its random and not just people with no work experience or little that are made to do it?
surely they are better off with jsa and the other perks like housing and council tax benefits over being paid min wage and having to pay rent and council tax ?
I do agree with other comments tho as they are not directly employed by the supermarket then why should they subsidise the food.
but I have learnt sonething new 😃
guess it depends what type of company/industry you work in, we get all the benefits you mention with pension and share buying kicking in after the end of your probation period.
only thing we don't get is subsidised food:(
Aye, you're right, but M&S was considered to be one of the best back then, in terms of employee care. I'm not disagreeing - things do change, I know that, and it's great that yours kicked in after probation.
I didn't always get subsidised food in my working life - most of the time I didn't, but M&S was different back then.
ahh thats my problem then not working in retail.
we get fed at confrences and seminars and the odd meal out and we have rules you can claim breakfast on expenses if you are travelling a long way to clients.
I guess in big retail places having a cheap canteen means staff are less likely to wander off the premises and therefore not be late back into work
Speaking as someone who has, on occasion, been involved in hiring decisions I would think more of someone who stuck through a crappy situation like hers and made the most of it. Yes it's shit..but so are a lot of jobs at least some of the time. The last thing I'd want to do is take on someone who whines when things aren't going their way. But someone who can shrug it off and tough it out is someone I want on my team.
I do agree that some kind of payment would be nice but I don't understand why people are going on about free food. Very few employers provide food for their workforce. It's generally assumed that staff will make their own arrangements. Moan about the lack of money by all means but you're not going to get anywhere whining about free lunches. As I wrote in my last reply I bet less than 10% of the UK workforce gets lunch provided for it. It just isn't 'normal'.
1) In a lot of cases companies choose 'workfare' to solve manpower shortages without having to pay for staff. So the firm is getting all jobs done and saving a lot of money.
A workfare participant is compelled to work for a minimum of 30 hrs a week. If the company employed a paid staff member to do this they'd be paying them £195 per week NMW. I'm sure from saving themselves £195 in wages they could afford £5 a day in food and light refreshments. Its moral common courtesy not an obligation.
I think £25 per week in food and refreshments is still far cheaper than £195
In the ideal world workfare participants if they do well should be offered a real job at the end but this seldom ever happens, because companies want the next batch of free labour.
2) Being a supermarket they get food in bulk and mass produced. I doubt that a plate of spag bol or pie and chips, with a cup of tea made from an economy tea bag worth less than 1p would even cost them £5 in ingredients and labour making it. I certainly doubt that the £7.99 for a meal my friend was charged would be even worth that. Probably less than £2.50 more like!
Its fair enough to charge customers that as that's business but not very courteous or nice to charge a young woman on only £72 a week JSA who is helping the supermarket.
3) If it was the DWP Jobcentre partly to blame by forbidding companies from giving reward financial, material or otherwise to Workfare participants, then that's pretty underhand of them. They force people onto these schemes with threat of 6 months loss of all benefits if they fail to comply. And this young woman was more than happy to do workfare but as a receptionist but was told she could not choose.
I know under social security laws any reward results in a change of circumstances for the claimant but I don't see how a reduced price meal as reward should affect their benefit entitlement!
sorry, but your posts sound like she is jobless with a lack of real work experience and she thinks being unemployed she can just choose a new career and she thinks being a receptionist is it.
maybe they couldnt get her a reception job due to lack of experience.
what have her previous jobs been?
She did work as a seasonal receptionist at a caravan park a few years ago but most jobs she applied for wanted more experience. She asked the job centre on several occasions if she could do unpaid work experience as a receptionist until she was put on to Mandatory Work Activity (Workfare) She got a referral letter telling her she must report to this supermarket. She was later told that she had no choice in the type of work or place of work.
Even at the supermarket she asked if she could do some admin work for them, but had this fairly rude supervisor who she was under and made sure she stayed in the warehouse getting rid of cardboard boxes, sweeping up, cleaning staff areas including staff toilets. She wasn't even allowed near the customer areas. Once when she asked about checkout work she got a sarcastic no. So she didn't even get any customer care experience!
Afterwards with the supermarket ordeal on her CV she still applies for over 25 jobs a week including retail with no luck and no where nearer been given reception or admin work. As a ref for her work all she got was postcard confirming she had done 4 weeks with them.
What was the point?? She's still living off the tax payer and no closer to a real job.
so like I thought no real experience.
so does the job centre not pay for her to train like computer courses or something that would help her get a job?
Are the majority of the 25 jobs admin/reception type jobs?
how old is she? is she young enough to do an apprenticeship? or she needs to look for a trainee position. i think she needs to get in touch with a recruitment agent with her cv and they will be honest onher chances of getting an admin job, they may even help her find one or tell her what she needs to do to become attractive to employers.
at the moment the job market is a employers dream cos they can pick the candidates that fit very strict criteria due to the number of applications for every job. it is much easier when the job market is in the job seekers favour.