It's the latter though they may try and dress it up as the former. Poundland say that they have slots free to give the unemployed some work experience and the girl in question was given the job for two weeks. The Job Centre tells an unemployed person this opportunity has arisen and that they must accept the post or lose their job seekers allowance. Poundland doesn't pay the employee (or the government) a penny for the persons services.

The case of the older bloke is actually worse as that would have involved him working 30 hours a week for his £71 JSA for six months. Tax payer funded exploitation and nothing less.

This is a joke, right?

I would say she has managed to raise her profile and is doing exactly the kind of thing this government wants which is funding her own unpaid intern-ship via her part time work thus not having to claim the JSA benefit.

But hey, I guess we should all kow-tow and put up exploitation regardless. God knows where you and I would be if the "potential trouble causer"'s of the past had shied away from standing up for their rights because they were afraid of getting labled.

She hasn't done anything unpaid, she's been in receipt of benefits.

Having read more about this, my understanding is the scheme, as designed, did not correspond with the legislation, as enacted. I suspect the legislation will be redrafted and the scheme reimplemented.

Perhaps the placement was of use to her. She has since got a job at Morrisons.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the long-term unemployed to be required to do something in return for their benefits. What format that should take though is up for debate.

I don't know about you, but I *am* an employer and I can tell you with certainty that this young lady has shown exactly the type of intiative and determination that a lot of organisations would value.

In my experience, people who have a history of running to the employment tribunal quickly get blacklisted in the industry they work.

This is not quite the same, but I think you can see the point I am trying to make.

Hand's up who has been waiting for the above tripe from Standee?

She worked for poundland for free because her JSA was not a wage and she recieved no wages from Poundland. It was a benefit provided to help her seek work. If you want to argue her JSA was her pay for working at pound-land then she would have been being paid less than minimum wage which is illegal. Her JSA simply cannot be considered pay in exactly the same way other benefits those on a low income receive are not considered pay. They are benefits.

If you think (as I am sure you do) people should accept work placements like this then when they do get put on such schemes they should be paid the minimum wage and the employer should pay it, not the taxpayer.

Please enlighten us all what you would do for under £80 a week?

I get the impression that you want the unemployed to be overworked for as little money as possible.

I would say doing as she did, gaining experience relevant to the work she wants to do as a career, was of far more use to her than the placement she got. I think her JSA funding that was absolutely fine and it's even better that she has become more self sufficient since by getting a part time job thus not claiming JSA any more.

What is also apparent that forcing her to take the Poundland job was all about getting someone to take a job, any job, without considering if it was going to give her relevant experience for the career she is aiming for.

As she is 24 it was £56.25, not the £71 you get if you are over 24.

She hasn't done that though and I fail to see how any intelligent employer would mistake one for the other.

I do see the point you're trying to make, but I don't agree with it.