You say I'm naïve, I say you're cyanical. Nether of us will ever know who is right.

And Mintball, I also saw that story, hence my opinion it should be voluntary.

I doubt that he is cyanical.
Mind you his humour is a bit blue.

I don't underestimate it at all, but if it's just a case of telling the unemployed that you have to turn up on time and be presentable I don't understand why that needs to be done over 4 weeks full time work stacking shelves, plus many of the unemployed know exactly well how to turn up and present themselves and stacking shelves in Tesco isn't going to help them in any way.

I never said that because Tesco make high profits they should hire more people. I said because they make high profits they, more so than anyone, should not be abusing a poorly thought-out scheme by using free labour. If there is a job to be done at Tesco's it should be a fully employed and paid position.
Quite how you compare that with stealing I have absolutely no idea.


It's not a good scheme. It's a terrible scheme that is officially voluntary, except it's not. Many unemployed are forced onto it by Jobcentre staff and it's name is actually not workfare it is called a Mandatory Work Placement.
As mentioned above by other people, many places are not giving references and only giving very basic information. Employers do not see a 4 week work placement at Tesco's stacking shelves as evidence as any kind of skill or commitment on the part of the unemployed person. Especially as most employers know that it is virtually a mandatory and not a completely voluntary scheme.

If it was a scheme that was relevant to the unemployed persons prior experience or job aspirations then it might be better. Like I said before if Tesco's were putting potential managers on a management experience scheme or even on shop floor management experience then it might be ok, but it's not. It's 4 weeks stacking shelves for free for one of the richest companies in the world.
To think of it as anything short of a disgrace is bizarre.
Also Tesco must have thought there was something wrong with it or they wouldn't have changed it.

Oh and I also think Tesco got into the scheme 100% to take advantage of the free/cheap labour available. Why else would they?

Bulls eye!

No time to reply to that whole post, but Tesco, a billion pound company, taking on the unemployed and unemployable to take advantage of free labour? Lol. Have a word with yourself.

You obviously don't know how the scheme works do you?

What? Why is that so hard for you to believe? You hardly need highly skilled and motivated people to stack shelves, so get them to do it for free and call it work experience. Saves each store a decent amount of money.

If it was such a good scheme why did Tesco change it?

Because they attracted so much flack from the media one would assume.