rlOops-a-daisy!rl

Beat me too it. Brilliant result.

Hmm. Encouraging, for sure, but it sounds more like the lack of information as regards the compulsory nature of the work and the sanctions for not taking it that's at issue rather than the principle of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And that's an argument we really ought not to be having in the second decade of the 20th century, let alone the second decade of the 21st.

Fantastic result but unfortunately there's still a long way to go.

so, she's used taxpayers money to sue the taxpayer to get more taxpayers money

yup, sounds great for everyone

She is a taxpayer as she now works part time in a supermarket and has done for months..

IDS = T0SSER with a capital T.

shows how employable she is then

If only there were enough jobs to go around then.

No I think it is both. The compulsion (and sanctions if you don't) to accept work placements is quite clear to see on the government web site here

rlhttps://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/further-informationrl

The sanctions seem pretty much "all or nothing" to me.

And the background to the case is herehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-16037332rl

If you read that you will see she was forced to stop voluntary work in a museum (the sector in which she is trying to find permanent work) to go and stack shelves for free at Poundland. I'd say she was making a better attempt at job seeking than the job centre were given where they sent her.

"....when she attended the open day she discovered the training would last up to six weeks, including a two-week, unpaid retail placement.

When she expressed concerns about the lack of relevance of the scheme to the work she wants to do, she said her Jobcentre Plus adviser had told her participation in the scheme was mandatory and that if she did not comply she would lose her benefits.

She said she spent two weeks cleaning and stacking shelves at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, and was not offered an interview.

"I think it's a form of manual labour in that they're forcing people to do jobs that are in no way related to what they want to do and giving them no experience for their careers," she said.

Jim Duffy, Ms Reilly's solicitor, said: "Everyone agrees on the need to help the unemployed back into work, but forcing young people into pointless, unpaid labour at massive retailers who could easily afford to pay them the minimum wage demeans and frustrates them when we should be empowering and supporting them.

"These Orwellian schemes are about work for its own sake rather than for any greater purpose."

What being compelled to work for your JSA means is that for the 40 year old chap who was told he had to work 30 hours a week that would mean he was on £71 a week or £2.36 an hour compared to £6.19 for the minimum wage. The girl would have been on £56.25 a week given her age.

If these schemes paid minimum wage instead of JSA then there would be far less argument about them so I don't think its just about the compulsion side.

The other problem is that it is also a vicious circle if you are participating in the Workfare Programme. You are claiming JSA and have to prove you are actively seeking work. People cannot actively seek work while working at Poundland for nothing therefore they have their JSA taken away for breaching the conditions. I have read this has actually happened to someone. I'll see if I can find the article and repost.

In suing the government she has prevented the likes of Poundland having the taxpayer subsidise their wage bill. Seems an obvious win for the taxpayer here.

And why does winning the case mean she would get more taxpayers money? If she were still unemployed she would just be getting the same £56.25 a week as she was before. What she wouldn't be forced to do is provide taxpayer funded cheap labour for Poundland.

As to your other comment regarding the fact she is now working part time in the supermarket this is so she can continue to work voluntarily in the museum which she feels will enable her to get a better job in the museum sector where she eventually wants to work. Sounds to me like she is a fine example of NOT being a benefits scrounger, is taking her own steps to enhance her employability in the field she wants to work in and that left to seek work herself rather than being compelled to work for nothing, she just highlights what a stupid system IDS had put in place.

that I can agree with, she is getting benefit paid for by the state, Pounland pay nothing, to me, that's the real scandal.

Anyone who can work and is in receipt of benefits should, IMHO, be doing something to deserve them.

That's how it goes with badly written legislation and always should be.

Agreed, the best thing they can be doing is devoting 39 hours a week to finding employment to get them off benefits, not boosting the profits of retailers.