A fact all the same

No its not, and there is a very simple reason why no government minister ever dare utter the word "wage" when speaking of any sort of workfare program - it can't be seen as a wage because HM Government would be breaking the law by paying £2.30 an hour to an adult for workfare.

Its an allowance based on your past contributions or current lack of income and your age, and its work experience designed to be part of an overall training and advice package offered to all job seekers which may or may not include some element of practical work experience, simple as that, nothing to do with a wage at all, be very careful about refering to it in that way in The House.

HOWEVER,

When it comes to party conference season it makes for damn good shouting and a-whooping and a-hollering to the party faithful when you give the impression that you're going to force these shirkers and work-shy lower class plebs to work for their benefits.

True but they are being forced to work for an amount of money that is way below the minimum wage.
Probably doing work that stops someone else from getting a job that would pay them the minimum wage.

The only winner here is Poundland getting free labour.

Indeed, and as I have said, that is the real issue.

The fact she's work shy and would rather toss it off volunteering in a museum is immeterial.

The facts say otherwise.



I really don't know whether you're trolling here, Standee, or whether you mean that:

1) Working in a museum isn't 'real' work – which itself suggests that museums are worthless;

2) Work experience isn't useful?

We don't know that she is workshy and we don't know what her volunteering duties involved.
But yes, it's immaterial to the issue of Poundland being the only winners, if that's what you meant.

On the basis that, after the Poundland nonsense, she apparently went and found a part-time job at Morrisons, while also doing work experience at the museum, it's a fair bet that we know that she is not "workshy".

Indeed, fair point.

I like Standee...He is an enigmatic conundrum. He can work himself into an orgasmic lather leading the righteous in a cavalry charge to have injustices over a couple of photos being displaced at the KC...Alternatively he can come on a thread like this and talk narrow-minded bollox!

What I don’t get is the Work Programme cost the tax payer about £5 billion, I think, and, (as far gaining full-time employment is concerned), being on the WP is worse than ‘doing nothing’.

The government has been accused of artificially reducing the unemployment figures by 105,000 because they are counting unemployed people on these work placement schemes as employed.

From here: [urlhttp://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-10-23d.124129.h[/url

"Those participants whose activity comprises any form of work, work experience or work-related training are classified as in employment. This is regardless of whether the individual is paid or not."

There also an issue of people being under-employed i.e. people in work who are seeking longer hours but can't get them. This is also in part thought to be linked to the free labour these work placements provide.

Finally there is the issue of falling unemployment yet no growth in GDP. More people said to be in work but the country is not producing more and income tax receipts are down. This is also partly explained by people doing voluntary work on a work placement scheme being classed as employed yet they aren't producing anything nor paying tax or NI because their income is JSA and not a wage from an employer.