There is no subsidy from 'my' tax. If someone is paid JSA out of tax they still get it whilst working as I understand it. If these corporations are truly being greedy (ie actually earning extra profits out of the arrangement) then they'll pay extra corporation tax, so my tax may be reduced. Much more likely the corporations don't make money - they need to administer and train the people. What they get out of it is good PR, good relations with govt. and the chance to employ the good people they give experience to. The govt. are trying to fix an issue - the can't get a job because of lack of expeience - and you don't even want to give it a chance. Far better to let the kids rot and stay unemployed for years. That way they might vote Labour or for a Far Right party in future.

I agree with this.

Unlike some of the lefties on here I actually don't think its a bad concept the government requiring young people to do some unpaid work for their dole, but it should be within the public sector. Subsidising Tescos like this will not help young people get jobs, they will always have a pool of free young people on the dole to dip into so it just means they will recruit less shelf stackers and get them for free from this government scheme, they won't give the kids a job at the end of it good attitude or not.

If they were taken on in the public sector then effectively it means the state is 'employing' them (on below minimum wage) but at least the state gets the benefit not a private company, and then the state can actively make sure they learn some skills in community projects etc.

I would make it like an enforced national service thing. Aged 18-25 and on the dole for 12 months or more? You get taken on by the government, given a small increase to your dole and made to work on a public sector scheme that gives you life and job skills that will at least give you something on your CV. Yes enforced slavery but at least with benefit to the taxpayer and the young person.

They're getting full-time work without paying anything for that work. Thus you and I are subsidising work for such bodies. Which, presumably, helps them make money.

And better that they actually employ people. If they need a job doing – and it's not just some invented charity job – then they can afford to pay a wage instead of sponging free labour off the taxpayer. So better that they actually create the jobs they promised they'd create when pleading with the Chancellor to butcher the public sector.

Then your powers of understanding is as bad as Sal's.

With what money are they supposed to do this with?


Why do employers see abusing the position of the low-paid as morally acceptable?


So teachers, nurses, soldiers, police, care workers etc don't deserve more than the pittance some of them are paid? You don't think a failure of government of policy ie unemployment has the effect of artificially lowering wages regardless of employees skills?
I also assume you then wholeheartedly agree with the public sector workers who are going on strike and wholeheartedly agree with public sector workers getting final salary pensions?



I have sympathy with the NI case (but not much) but employment law? Don't make me laugh. Far too often employers (including small businesses) are just out for what they can get at the cheapest possible rate and then b1tch and moan when the employee they hire isn't quite perfect.
Perfect example - an "employer" was on 5Live today bemoaning the fact he couldn't find ANY young people (aged 17-24) to go on his apprenticeship scheme at his restaurant. The ones who he'd had before "simply didn't want to work" and "weren't committed". It then turns out he was paying these people £2.50 per hour, expected them to work exceptionally hard, expected them to work evenings and weekends and then wondered why he didn't get many people that were suitable.
Another, more suitable and socially responsible employer was doing the same kind of apprenticeship but paid over £5.00 per hour and treated the apprentices like people and not like some kind of undeserving underclass who should be grateful for the scraps on the table.

I previously thought these trial schemes might be good, perhaps give people who (for whatever reason) couldn't get by the interview stage the chance to show what they could do.

However my 19 year old cousin has just finished a 6 month work trial doing childcare with a company who are big business in after school care locally. She excelled, the reference she's been given by her line manager is fantastic and she's been asked to be on a 'bank' for anytime they are short staffed (and is currently covering sick leave for them). She hasn't however been offered a permanant job because they've another 'work triallist' starting in the next few weeks and there was never any chance of her getting the job because the management won't allow a full time paid post to be taken when they can enter this workscheme.

Further more she's been told (unofficially) by someone she was interviewed by in the last week that one of their interview panel couldn't understand why, if she was so good, they didn't take her on when they know they are getting someone else in. So her work trial might actually hinder, rather than help, her with future applications.

Her advisor is going to look into it for her because companies shouldn't be allowed to have continual 'triallists' if they have no intention of actually giving them a job.

Though I must say even unpaid work in the community is just really the same thing because if that work needs doing a wage should be paid for the work.

Unpaid work anywhere in the community or at Tesco's just increases unemployment (and so reduces tax and NI revenue) because all Tesco's or councils will do is employ fewer people as they know they can get a few unpaid shelf stacker's/street cleaners each 8 weeks.

My friend works for tesco and this explains why the overtime she was promised has been taken away

Which means if she pays tax will pay less of it and both she and Tesco's will pay less NI contributions. So she is not the only one to lose out. We all do because her increased contribution to the economy she would have given by the overtime has vanished.

i saw this on an LFC forum i use.
it s disgusting and means the companies have no need to recruit as they have an unlimited supply of free labour. why pay minimum wage when they can pay sweet FA

IF this scheme needs to be in force, why not supply small/failing local business or community projects for 10 hours a week instead. these multi multi billiion pound companies do not need FREE LABOUR.

terrible.