Vocal Voices

That is what happened to Cait Riley, so she took the government to court and has won on appeal.

But hang on. She was getting JSA and probably Housing Benefit, as well as Council Tax relief, so hardly working for nothing. If everything is taken into account as 'money' then she was being paid, but at a rate a lot less than min wage. Therein lies a big problem, or problems.

It is illegal to employ someone on less than min wage, that applies to government as well. It is also in the rules that someone unemployed cannot work more than a few hours otherwise they are deemed to not be looking for work. The scheme broke that rule. The scheme also allowed commercial businesses to have free labour - at tax payers' expense. For every 1.5 people taken on free a job available to the unemployed was lost.

The whole thing is a sorry mess, but that's what politicians do for us.

Well if they don't like working for nothing, perhaps they could "not work" for nothing too. And I do mean nothing, no benefit, no housing benefits, nothing.

But that's bad right?

There are so many theme's to this and so many who truly need this support. However there are many others who could, if they had no other recourse, actually make ends meet. So many people use benefits to be a stop gap until they get "the opportunity they want". That is not what it is designed for. It is designed for those with no other recourse.

It can only get worse, not better......

Suff wrote:There are so many theme's to this and so many who truly need this support. However there are many others who could, if they had no other recourse, actually make ends meet. So many people use benefits to be a stop gap until they get "the opportunity they want". That is not what it is designed for. It is designed for those with no other recourse.

Yes, my thoughts too.

Did she bring this case off her own bat, or was someone else backing her?

eta - I have to admit to being as shallow as a puddle on this one; I really don't like the look of this young lady ay all!

I think she's being backed.

She obviously used Legal Aid... that is what it is there for.

She was actually doing voluntary work in a museum to make her CV more relevant to her degree, but that was not good enough for the tick box merchants at the DWP. Oh no, they had numbers to find.... and she was just a number to them, so they sent her off stacking shelves at Poundland.

If it highlights yet another example of the inability of Government departments to do joined up thinking, then good on her; I'm glad she won her appeal. I hope people keep exploiting the loopholes until such a time 'they' who are paid for from the public purse, get it right.

I am also pleased that she won.

On the one hand I agree with WM - she was getting paid as she was getting her benefits. But so were lots of other people who were just sat at home on their backsides with no interest in working.

But you just know that lots of the companies that sign up to these schemes are just doing it for cheap labour and have no intention of keeping these people on on a proper wage. No doubt as soon as they get to the end of their apprenticeship (or whatever it is) they get rid of them and get someone else in to work for peanuts.

I think this woman thought she was too good with her degree to work in a Pound Shop. Must be pages and pages of Museum Curator job offers in the Situations Vacant?Join the queue of graduates with degrees who can't get jobs they believe they should get with their named degrees. They still have to learn how to actually do something besides study. This scheme is for people who haven't worked, and for them every day is a Duvet Day, to come to terms with the work ethic. Get up in the mornings, be there on time, put up with the usual aggro, get home tired and do it all over again the next day. Millions of people do this every day.

She was getting paid benefits for not working, she was still getting paid the benefits for working at Poundland. Her benefits were stopped because she refused to work there!

When an employer takes on an apprentice they are obliged to teach them new skills as well as pay a wage. They don't have those skills when they start so at the end of the apprenticeship they have been trained and have something to offer other employers or, if there is a vacancy, a place with the business that trained them. Sounds fair to me!

She's now working part time in Morrisons supermarket!

I'm pleased she won - on balance - as I'm not happy about Poundland reaping the benefit of free labour. The arrangement stinks of the workhouse and has no incerntive to any decent unemployed person to get a job. Poundland should at least have paid her the minimum wage.

It was work experience and a two week placement for the long term unemployed. That's all she had to do, turn up for two weeks, keep her benefits then I think another thirteen weeks not working before she had to do it again to hang onto her benefits. Am I missing something here?