I would be interested in your views on this one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ate-get-me-out-of-here.html#comment-410448909
Given that graduates are now as plentiful as heaps of dog-crap on pavements, compared to the days when getting to university was hard work and jobs were chasing the graduates....and given that relatively few of them take degrees useful in the real world, anyway.......I'm not surprised she is still unemployed. Because graduates are so plentiful now...the requirements for employment have increased......where a first used to mean you were the best of the best...a first nowadays just means you are employable. I can remember the days when Chartered Accountancy Apprenticeships, only required appropriate Highers (in Scotland), two years on the job training, a year at University, then another two years back on the job. By the time you qualified, you knew what you were doing, what the job entailed....and could actually do it...much like nursing training used to be....by the time you were an RGN you were useful..and didn't then have to spend years learning what to do with the theory you had (or hadn't) amassed. The emphasis on dumbing down education to the extent that you can now get degrees from "universities" in subjects which used to be vocational qualifications achieved at local colleges, and considered by employers in that light, has given people inflated opinion of their value to society.....and unrealistic expectations of the rewards which they feel are their dues. Re the being obliged to do work experience to show she was able to get out of bed in the morning, willing to work, capable of taking instruction, and had a decent attitude to that instruction....and, in the process, add to her CV.......why should she be exempted from the same rules as everybody else?
I agree with your comments about the fact that this can be useful to her CV as some work expereince is better than non. I generally also agree that there are a lot of crap degrees out there and that higher ed has dumbed itself down in order to get more students. However, geology does not fall into that catergory. It is the most sought after discipline in the world today and there is a huge shortage of geologists. At the moment companies will pay a new graduate $90k a year. At the same time she wants to be a curator in a museum. A job which usually requires a phd. So she simply isnt qualified for the career she wants, but wont take jobs in the industry in which she is qualified even though it would offer very good money.
Nobody should be forced to work for no pay, which is what happened to this young lady - or so she claims. It's exploitation.
That kinda depends on what you consider exploitation, doesn't it? Did she ever actually tell the DWP that she was doing voluntary work and was not available for any other work.or not available for the full forty hours...or get permission to do the voluntary work as work experience.or did she just go her own sweet way? Exploitation is contracting to do something for a weekly payment...and then ignoring that contract when it suits...but still expecting to be paid. To me exploitation is collecting Jobseekers with no intentions of working if you can't get the job you want at the pay you want..and expect to be free to do what you want to do when you want to do it..although you have agreed that you will be available for at least 40 hours a week Exploitation is earning £50,000 plus annually and claiming (and you do have to claim all non-means tested benefits.otherwise they ain't going to know where to send the money/concession card or whatever.are they) every non-means tested benefit going. Exploitation is children buying their parents' council house for "them" at a huge discount......and then selling it on after they "inherit" it for a huge profit. Exploitation, in fact, is someone who can well afford to buy a house on the open market buying their council house at all, and removing it from the social housing stock. Exploitation is private landlords upping rents for tenants receiving benefits to the maximum local authorities will pay. Exploitation is families which reproduce at rabbit rate because they know that benefits reward fecundity. Exploitation are those claiming every benefit going and working on the side. etc
I was told it was mandatory. There were five of us sent there. I was the only graduate. We were doing exactly the same work as the paid staff. It makes no sense. If the Government subsidises high street chains with free labour, they dont have to recruit. It causes unemployment rather than solves it. The fact she is a graduate is neither here nor there. All five of them were exploited by Poundland, who also exploited the system to get free staff. It wasn't a temporary job. She earned the grand total of zilch. Taxpayers paid their wages for Poundland.
I wouldn't hire her. And its a shame she is showing her attitude to every employer that reads the papers. She wants to be on the dole, but doesn't want to work. Which...if I'm reading this right---she will lose her welfare payment if she stops this volunteer work. It sounds like she wants something for nothing. She seems spoiled and has an attitude of entitlement. But...let me re-read and see if I have missed something.
Nope......you haven't missed much. And if she read what she signed and the leaflets she got when she first signed on......she wouldn't have missed so much either. Not overly bright for a graduate, imho. There was nothing stopping her asking the place where she was doing voluntary work to join the scheme themselves......but then that would mean she couldn't stay there as long as she wanted but would have to let others get a turn. Anyway, if she was useful, they would likely have taken her back after Poundland, or could maybe have changed her days/hours while she was doing the work experience. Lots of folk have an attitude of entitlement in the UK....children, adults, groups and big business.....I blame 18 years of Tory Rule, followed by 14 years of Tory (NuLabour) Rule and the policies of the current Tory Coalition shower..and the "rights without responsibilities" dished out by an EU trying to keep their plethora of otherwise unemployable European politicians in a job producing stupidity....and accepted without quibble by the UK Government.
So many things in that article. - She was being paid - by the state, not the store, but still she was being paid for the work. - The graduate part is irrelevant, but bringing it up shows an elitist mentality that makes her seem to be too good to do any real work. - Her degree may or may not be useful - the records of other geology grads seems to indicate that it isn't in much demand right now. - Starting salaries are supposed to be low. You are of very little value to the company fresh out of college and with no experience. You can't expect to live comfortably, on your own or raise a family before you learn the ropes of your new profession. There is more, but those jump out at me right off.
There's a bit of confusion here. You're from Australia, but you're writing about something going on in England. Also, your location description Perth, WA. The letters WA are the same as the abbreviation for the state of Washington, located in the northwestern United States. In any event, if the lady is receiving a weekly payment, what's so bad about putting in some hours of work as long as it isn't a lot of hours (job hunting takes time and energy too).
Ah...but JSA is an entitlement if you qualify.......and as long as you are not working you are entitled to claim it. What is hacking people off now is that they are no longer allowed, for any longer than nine months (I think), to trot into the Jobcentre once a fortnight.....wave photocopies of job applications at the adviser to prove they have been doing what they are expected to do......and then bugger off home to spend their time amusing themselves doing what they feel like for the next fourteen days. After nine months unemployed, more effort is expected..if only to give the adviser, who gets reports, an idea where you are having problems....as in attitude, application, work ethic, qualification etc, so they know what to advise from there to help you get work.
WA also stands for Western Australia.......the world doesn't begin and end in the USA..no matter what your education system teaches you. Why wouldn't an Australian start a thread about English/UK news........plenty Americans do. Agree with your last sentence.....in fact having to do work they really don't want to do might make some try harder to get work they would be happy doing.
No, she wasn't. True...and? What does that have to do with working for no pay at all? I hope they're relevant. Would you work for no pay?
Firstly, i am living in Australia but i am english and will be moving back to the UK this year. Sorry if my profile isnt clear, but i assumed that the word Perth with WA would make it clear it was WA Australia Secondly, for the benefit of hiimjered who can not of read my earlier post. Geology grads are in huge demand. If she wanted work she could have a job as a geologist within a week. As for low pay. I suppose that depends on your view. We start grads on $90k a year. Personally i think thats pretty good. I am 4 years post qualified and just made senior geologist which puts my salary over the $200k a year mark. The problem is that she refuses to take a geology job and instead wants a to be a museum curator. A job which she is not qualified to do. The bit about only one of her fellow students getting work is a total lie. The reason i know this is that my company employed two of them With regard to the scheme, i think overall it is a good thing. Especialy for someone with no real work background. As an employer i would far prefer to see any sort of work on a CV as it shows the basics like a person can get themselves up on a morning
Yes she was, she was getting benefits. Which part of she was getting benefits do you not quite understand? I kinda thought all the points made were relevant..funny how attitudes colour the ability to read. By the way I have worked for no pay bar benefits on two different occasions in my working life. Different times......different mores, perhaps......and no acquired sense of entitlement to have taxpayer money subsidising me while I did only what I wanted to do.
She was getting JSA. She wasn't getting paid to do a job of work. The part that says you must work for no pay. No. They were just a bash at the unemployed. Work experience at school? You aren't actually supposed to work. You're supposed to be learning something. How did you keep yourself whilst working?
She was not working for the people who paid her, so no, she wasn't getting paid for working. Both she and tax payers were being exploited by Poundland because the government allows it.
So, a plumber fixing a problem in Poundland, but getting a paycheck from Joe's Plumbing isn't getting paid for working? If the source of your paycheck directs you to do a job, that job is being done for your compensation - no matter where that job is or what is being done. This happens all of the time with temp agencies. You'll get paid by the temp agency but work for a completely different company. She wasn't exploited, she was meeting requirements of the program. As for taxpayers being exploited, I'm sure Poundland pays quite a bit of tax itself - far more than the JSA workers were getting paid. So indirectly, Poundland was paying their wages.
Work experience is, by definition....not a job of work..that is why it is called work "experience". Which part of the woman is a graduate..ergo the assumption would be that she can at least read, wouldn't you think? JobCentres have always required those signing on to complete an agreement as to what is expected of them......and always hand out explanatory leaflets. So is she so indescribably thick that she can't read what she is signing, having previously discussed it with the adviser...or too lazy to read leaflets. Does she expect to be spoonfed as well? You illustrate my point superbly. Which part of working life do you have such immense difficulty in understanding? Did you go to school? Do you mean when doing work experience? The same way I did when I was hanging about the house applying for jobs.....Jobseekers Allowance..that is what no pay bar Benefits means, you know!
But she was put to work. Yes. One doesn't agree to do unpaid work. In what way? Yes, I went to school and I also work. I get paid. Yes. Working without pay. How did you actively search for work whilst working without pay?
Well, DUH! How do you get work experience if you don't do any work? Please explain this dichotomy. Given that.would you not then expect her to read what she signed and what was given to her to explain the way the system works? One does if one wishes to claim JSA after nine months on it....fact of life. In every way. I can do pointless soundbites just as well as you can. Then you obviously have a paid job.......lucky you! But work experience is not a paid job.....it is something you are obliged to do, while receiving JSA in order to improve your chances of actually getting paid work. Nope.....working while collecting JSA in order to continue receiving JSA. You don't have to actively seek for work when receiving JSA to undertake work experience......the fact of doing the work experience is fulfilling the agreement made when you signed on..though you do have to go back to actively seeking work once the Work Experience period is over.
No need to spit your dummy out. The point of work experience is that you learn how organisations work and the kind of skills you may need. You carry out certain tasks under supervision so you understand what the job involves. I'll give you an example. My eldest daughter chose to do her work experience in Tesco. She and I thought such a large organisation would give her an opportunity to experience a wide variety of occupations. She spend the first three days attaching labels to baby clothes in the warehouse. On the fourth day she asked when or if she was going to be shown how other departments and was told maybe next week, so I pulled her out. She was doing a job of work for no remuneration. The same as this lady. yeah..I know how it works. One doesn't agree to work for nothing at any time. You can do them much better. Working for nothing does not improve your chance of getting a job. She didn't learn a thing that would be useful to her. Working for a private company for nothing which means tax payers are paying the wages. Work experience is supposed to be gaining experience and knowledge. Not working for nothing. We could go on and on, I suppose, but it's not difficult to understand the difference between work experience and temporary work.
But isnt a large part of the issue the fact that she chooses not to work and so should not be entitled to benfits
