If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Unemployed geology major suing British government for making her serve two-week retail internship to keep her benefits, says stacking shelves is a violation of her special snowflake rights   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 381
    More: Dumbass, Jobseeker's Allowance, Poundland, Birmingham University, judicial review, ministers  
•       •       •

12772 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2012 at 3:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



381 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-11 11:49:39 AM
My opinion of this depends almost entirely on the what "benefits" means here.
 
2012-01-11 11:50:35 AM
I receive certain benefits through my local and state governments because I am poor (and underemployed). Because of this, I am required to do certain things, such as attending job seminars, filling out any number of forms, prove I'm actually looking for full-time work, etc...

If you don't want to follow the rules the government sets, don't accept their money. Simple as that.
 
2012-01-11 11:54:49 AM
So, she was forced to quit voluntary volunteer work that would increase her qualifications and ability to get a job in her career field and required to do mandatory volunteer work that has nothing to do with increasing her chances of getting a job in her career?

If they were actually paying her to stock shelves for two weeks, I might be able to see the school's point. As it is, she isn't sitting at home or dorm or wherever, she is out improving her chances of starting her career and is being forced to put that on hold.
 
2012-01-11 12:00:38 PM

Timid Goddess: So, she was forced to quit voluntary volunteer work that would increase her qualifications and ability to get a job in her career field and required to do mandatory volunteer work that has nothing to do with increasing her chances of getting a job in her career?

If they were actually paying her to stock shelves for two weeks, I might be able to see the school's point. As it is, she isn't sitting at home or dorm or wherever, she is out improving her chances of starting her career and is being forced to put that on hold.


She's not in school.
 
2012-01-11 12:04:48 PM

netweavr: Timid Goddess: So, she was forced to quit voluntary volunteer work that would increase her qualifications and ability to get a job in her career field and required to do mandatory volunteer work that has nothing to do with increasing her chances of getting a job in her career?

If they were actually paying her to stock shelves for two weeks, I might be able to see the school's point. As it is, she isn't sitting at home or dorm or wherever, she is out improving her chances of starting her career and is being forced to put that on hold.

She's not in school.


I may have missed it, but I thought it was the school's financial policy that was causing her to need to do unpaid work shelving goods at a store when she could be doing unpaid work that would actually help her career, even though as you are pointing out she has graduated from school.
 
2012-01-11 12:07:28 PM

Timid Goddess: netweavr: Timid Goddess: So, she was forced to quit voluntary volunteer work that would increase her qualifications and ability to get a job in her career field and required to do mandatory volunteer work that has nothing to do with increasing her chances of getting a job in her career?

If they were actually paying her to stock shelves for two weeks, I might be able to see the school's point. As it is, she isn't sitting at home or dorm or wherever, she is out improving her chances of starting her career and is being forced to put that on hold.

She's not in school.

I may have missed it, but I thought it was the school's financial policy that was causing her to need to do unpaid work shelving goods at a store when she could be doing unpaid work that would actually help her career, even though as you are pointing out she has graduated from school.


I was under the impression that "benefits" here was like Unemployment Benefits in the US. In which case, I agree with the State. Really though, I'm not British so I don't know what the hell they mean by "benefits"
 
2012-01-11 12:08:55 PM
FTFA:
Unemployed graduate sues ministers for being 'forced' to stack shelves in Poundland
Cait Reilly has been looking for work since graduating in the summer

So she graduated last summer and has been collecting unemployment benefits ever since.
 
2012-01-11 12:11:04 PM

Two Dogs Farking: FTFA:
Unemployed graduate sues ministers for being 'forced' to stack shelves in Poundland
Cait Reilly has been looking for work since graduating in the summer

So she graduated last summer and has been collecting unemployment benefits ever since.


In which case the State can make her perform volunteer tasks that give her employable skills, regardless of whatever she wants to do with her life. I mean, if the goal of unemployment is to get people employed, then you train people in skills that match the available jobs. You don't just float them along until their ideal position opens.
 
2012-01-11 12:16:50 PM
The picture reminds me of "Being a Dickhead's Cool" by the Grand Spectacular.
 
2012-01-11 12:19:15 PM
I just came in here to let everyone know that I want to go to Poundland with your wife/girlfriend/mother and/or daughter.
 
2012-01-11 12:22:11 PM
I agree with her. By forcing her into a retail job they are making her less employable since it's outside of her field, unlike the museum volunteering, and it occupies her days which would be better spent interviewing and jobhunting. Since she's only been out of work for a few months it's not like she's just riding the government gravy train so let the girl alone and don't waste her time on retail work. Don't waste the retailer's time either for that matter since she'll bolt as soon as anything better shows up.
 
2012-01-11 12:25:38 PM
My hair...
i.dailymail.co.uk
...it was a pound too.
 
2012-01-11 12:31:15 PM

eddyatwork: Since she's only been out of work for a few months it's not like she's just riding the government gravy train so let the girl alone and don't waste her time on retail work.

It's been at least six months and apparently she's never worked. I have no problem with her volunteering in museums in hope of scoring paid work, as long as she's doing something on the side to pay the bills - whether it's stacking shelves, flipping burgers, or babysitting. But saying she's unavailable to work because she's "volunteering", while collecting unemployment since the day she graduated, makes her a precious snowflake.
 
2012-01-11 12:37:52 PM
So "Poundland" is NOT a sex shop!?
 
2012-01-11 12:45:00 PM

Two Dogs Farking: eddyatwork: Since she's only been out of work for a few months it's not like she's just riding the government gravy train so let the girl alone and don't waste her time on retail work.
It's been at least six months and apparently she's never worked. I have no problem with her volunteering in museums in hope of scoring paid work, as long as she's doing something on the side to pay the bills - whether it's stacking shelves, flipping burgers, or babysitting. But saying she's unavailable to work because she's "volunteering", while collecting unemployment since the day she graduated, makes her a precious snowflake.


But that's the thing. Neither of the gigs is work. Poundland's not paying her, nor is the museum.

I'd like to know what kind of arrangement the govt has with businesses that are taking these "volunteers". Does the business pay the government for the services? Or do they get the services for free? In either case, it's cause for some squeamishness. If it's the former, they should be paying the beneficiary directly. The government's interest should be in getting people off the dole, and this merely continues the dole. The latter is an actual disincentive for businesses to hire people.

It's a bad arrangement, in my mind. You want people off welfare, you put time limits on it or eliminate it entirely. You don't start what are in effect modern chain gangs.
 
2012-01-11 12:48:26 PM

Two Dogs Farking: eddyatwork: Since she's only been out of work for a few months it's not like she's just riding the government gravy train so let the girl alone and don't waste her time on retail work.
It's been at least six months and apparently she's never worked. I have no problem with her volunteering in museums in hope of scoring paid work, as long as she's doing something on the side to pay the bills - whether it's stacking shelves, flipping burgers, or babysitting. But saying she's unavailable to work because she's "volunteering", while collecting unemployment since the day she graduated, makes her a precious snowflake.


An agency make her stop a volunteer position that would increase her ability to be employed to take an unpaid position. She is not getting paid for either position. If she is not getting paid, other than whatever benefits she is gaining from the agency, why is she being forced to give up a position that improves her chances of not needing help from the agency?

If she was being paid to to stock shelves or flip burgers or babysit, etc., I would see your point. As it is, I agree with the woman in the article that she is making better use of her time volunteering within her career field than being forced to stock shelves, or some other arbitrary minimum wage field without pay simply because of some agency's policy.

It is the without pay part that makes me rather sympathetic to her assertion that it is forced work that makes me sympathetic to her complaint. That and the fact that although she has not found a position yet, she is working to make herself more employable in her field. Something she cannot continue to do for two weeks due to some agency regulation.
 
2012-01-11 12:54:14 PM

Babwa Wawa: I'd like to know what kind of arrangement the govt has with businesses that are taking these "volunteers". Does the business pay the government for the services? Or do they get the services for free? In either case, it's cause for some squeamishness. If it's the former, they should be paying the beneficiary directly. The government's interest should be in getting people off the dole, and this merely continues the dole. The latter is an actual disincentive for businesses to hire people.


Yeah, that's a good point. WTF is this arrangement about?
 
2012-01-11 12:55:17 PM

Timid Goddess: An agency make her stop a volunteer position that would increase her ability to be employed to take an unpaid position. She is not getting paid for either position. If she is not getting paid, other than whatever benefits she is gaining from the agency, why is she being forced to give up a position that improves her chances of not needing help from the agency?


I have no evidence of this, but I suspect that Poundland pays the government for the services of these volunteers more than the museum.

Which is exactly why these sort of policies are fairly stupid.
 
2012-01-11 01:02:51 PM

netweavr: Babwa Wawa: I'd like to know what kind of arrangement the govt has with businesses that are taking these "volunteers". Does the business pay the government for the services? Or do they get the services for free? In either case, it's cause for some squeamishness. If it's the former, they should be paying the beneficiary directly. The government's interest should be in getting people off the dole, and this merely continues the dole. The latter is an actual disincentive for businesses to hire people.

Yeah, that's a good point. WTF is this arrangement about?


Regardless of what it is, it's asinine. For every welfare recipient they have stocking shelves, that's one less employee they have on the payroll. Same goes for the museum. Businesses love it because they get labor at lower than market rates, conservatives love it because "the deadbeats are doing some damned thing at least". Meanwhile, it takes jobs off the market.

Dumbest. Idea. Ever.
 
2012-01-11 01:08:41 PM

Babwa Wawa: netweavr: Babwa Wawa: I'd like to know what kind of arrangement the govt has with businesses that are taking these "volunteers". Does the business pay the government for the services? Or do they get the services for free? In either case, it's cause for some squeamishness. If it's the former, they should be paying the beneficiary directly. The government's interest should be in getting people off the dole, and this merely continues the dole. The latter is an actual disincentive for businesses to hire people.

Yeah, that's a good point. WTF is this arrangement about?

Regardless of what it is, it's asinine. For every welfare recipient they have stocking shelves, that's one less employee they have on the payroll. Same goes for the museum. Businesses love it because they get labor at lower than market rates, conservatives love it because "the deadbeats are doing some damned thing at least". Meanwhile, it takes jobs off the market.

Dumbest. Idea. Ever.


Not really the dumbest ever, I mean they're getting people employable skills.

Maybe they should just ban volunteer/unpaid work altogether.
 
2012-01-11 01:12:53 PM

Babwa Wawa: netweavr: Babwa Wawa: I'd like to know what kind of arrangement the govt has with businesses that are taking these "volunteers". Does the business pay the government for the services? Or do they get the services for free? In either case, it's cause for some squeamishness. If it's the former, they should be paying the beneficiary directly. The government's interest should be in getting people off the dole, and this merely continues the dole. The latter is an actual disincentive for businesses to hire people.

Yeah, that's a good point. WTF is this arrangement about?

Regardless of what it is, it's asinine. For every welfare recipient they have stocking shelves, that's one less employee they have on the payroll. Same goes for the museum. Businesses love it because they get labor at lower than market rates, conservatives love it because "the deadbeats are doing some damned thing at least". Meanwhile, it takes jobs off the market.

Dumbest. Idea. Ever.


Looking at some US equivalents it appears that this kind of unpaid work is legit iff the company gains no benefit from it. In other words they have the volunteer doing work that's already been done, that will be done again by a paid-worker or with the supervision of the paid-laborer (eg the paid guy still has a job) for the sake of giving the unpaid-worker experience.

I'm okay with that.
 
2012-01-11 01:15:03 PM
Shouldn't an unemployed geology major be breaking big rocks into smaller ones?
 
2012-01-11 01:23:06 PM
SHE BELONGS IN A MUSEUM!
 
2012-01-11 01:32:48 PM

netweavr:
Not really the dumbest ever, I mean they're getting people employable skills.

Maybe they should just ban volunteer/unpaid work altogether.


I went to college in the late early nineties. There were internships - minimum wage gofer jobs. You basically took the gig for networking and "fly on the wall" learning. Some of the business, tech and science majors got cooperative jobs, where students worked for a semester instead of going to class and labs. Students were paid about $30k/year annualized. There were some unpaid internships, but nobody I knew could afford to take them, and they were with such low-esteem organizations that nobody wanted them anyway.

The idea that experience alone is adequate compensation for work performed died when schools replaced apprenticeships. Its revival is relatively new, and it's taken an exploitative form. The government should not be party to the exploitation either, because it leads to bad policy decisions like this one.
 
2012-01-11 01:34:30 PM

Babwa Wawa: I went to college in the late eighties/early nineties


I'm a dumbass
 
2012-01-11 01:38:46 PM

netweavr: this kind of unpaid work is legit iff the company gains no benefit from it.


Meh. I don't know any organizations that don't benefit from whatever volunteers they have on hand. They wouldn't allow them if there's no benefit to organization. Museums get free tour guides/information workers, Poundland gets free stockers.
 
2012-01-11 02:50:24 PM
Stocking shelves at a dollar store is the very definition of unskilled labor. You can literally hire almost anyone off the street to do it. Making someone serve an unpaid stint doing this is not passing along any appreciable skills that could not be acquired otherwise, and is not appreciably helping anyone realistically improve their chances for better employment prospects.

I will never understand the impulse to extract a pound of flesh from someone who depends on government benefits in the form of a check to survive. Everyone depends on some form of government assistance to survive, unless you're holed up in a cabin in the woods somewhere shooting squirrels for meat, in which case you should probably be sending the US Parks Service a gift basket at Christmas. But you receive an unemployment check, and then you've suddenly waived all rights and the government can make you do whatever they want, including unpaid labor at a location of their choosing. Imagine making anyone who received a tax refund work two weeks without pay at a Weinerschnitzel. And then calling it "career advancement".

Asking someone to demonstrate that they've looked for work or are somehow setting themselves up for a career is one thing. Making someone literally slave away at a dead end crappy dollar store because the corporation running the store has some friends in Parliament, with benefits to the company and none to the worker, is quite another.
 
2012-01-11 03:06:50 PM

The_Sponge: SHE BELONGS IN A MUSEUM!



operatorchan.org
 
2012-01-11 03:28:22 PM
Aw, the 99% is so adorable.
 
2012-01-11 03:29:36 PM
I declare her "kinda cute."

/Means I'm on her side...or something...whatever...it's Britain.
 
2012-01-11 03:31:03 PM

Snarfangel: Shouldn't an unemployed geology major be breaking big rocks into smaller ones?


That's for us EMPLOYED geologists to do. That's before the daily binge drinking of course.
 
2012-01-11 03:31:18 PM
This is why we need to legalize prostitution, so we can force people like her to spend two weeks as an unpaid whore.
 
2012-01-11 03:34:23 PM
Awwww, there are actually some people here defending her. The poor girl, she gets to receive government help, but God forbid they have something that she is required to do in order to keep those benefits. She is so above sweeping floors, I mean she has a college degree and everything. She would fit quite nicely in the US with the OWS crowd. They and she deserves the benefits without any strings attached. Drop dead lady, you are getting something for nothing. If you are asked to take two weeks of your time and fulfill a simple requirement, do it and stop biatching. Hopefully the economy will turn around and you will be able to get a job in your chosen field. If not, stocking shelves and sweeping floors will do just fine. You aren't above it, in fact it might even be good for you. Whiny little waste of DNA.
 
2012-01-11 03:37:15 PM
I think it's a form of manual labour in that they're forcing people to do jobs that are in no way related to what they want to do and giving them no experience for their careers.

I want to be an astronaut, but it ain't gonna happen. Sometimes you have to take what you can get.
 
2012-01-11 03:37:41 PM
How does volunteering at a museum make her more employable as a geologist?
 
2012-01-11 03:38:25 PM

stpauler: My hair...
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x423]
...it was a pound too.



She looks like Skrillex.
 
2012-01-11 03:38:38 PM
Uh, everyone who says she isn't being paid needs to give us all a definition of her benefits that includes no food, shelter, or monetary value.

The situation isn't that the government says she doesn't get to work at a volunteer position just because she wants to, when the government is paying all her bills. The government is saying that her collecting unemployment is sufficient proof that her volunteer position isn't contributing enough to society to account for the cost the government is shelling out, so if she wants to keep collecting it, she needs to go work someplace the government has agreements to receive value back.

In other words, this is EXACTLY what welfare should do: It's taking paying someone who doesn't have a paying to do work that kicks back money into the program.

Step 2 is working directly for the grocery store and stop collecting unemployment.

Step 3 is doing the volunteer work for the museum anyway, on the side, and using that to get a BETTER job.


You don't get to just do what you want in the hopes of eventually getting the job you want while the rest of the world pays for it. If that was the case, I'd be in a serious male prostitute internship collecting unemployment while I get ready for a job to open up running a brothel that caters only to extremely gorgeous actresses.
 
2012-01-11 03:39:55 PM

Slaves2Darkness: This is why we need to legalize prostitution, so we can force people like her to spend two weeks as an unpaid whore.


Trust me--You don't want to "get your rocks off" with that one.
 
2012-01-11 03:40:22 PM
yeah, sidebar: Link (new window)

nsfw
 
2012-01-11 03:40:39 PM
How does a geology graduate not get a job in their field unless they're actively not trying to?
 
2012-01-11 03:41:05 PM
Also, how do you end up an unemployed geologist? Come to the US and get an MS, Poundlander, and oil companies will be falling all over themselves to hire your ass.
 
2012-01-11 03:41:07 PM

Mr Guy: In other words, this is EXACTLY what welfare should do: It's taking paying someone who doesn't have a paying to do work that kicks back money into the program.


Wow, that sentence really got away from me. I meant to say, "It's taking someone who doesn't have work to do and paying them to do work that kicks back money into the program".
 
2012-01-11 03:41:16 PM
No, she's not "above" doing this, but why the hell don't they get someone unqualified, who is maybe middle aged and long term unemployed to do this, whom if they show willing might actually get considered for any future position.

There's the fail.
 
2012-01-11 03:42:30 PM

kaseyfarksdaladies: How does volunteering at a museum make her more employable as a geologist?


I don't know. But I do know that having "Poundland" on my resume' would rule!
 
2012-01-11 03:43:18 PM
If you don't want benefits, don't stock shelves.

The only thing we have to do in this world is die, honey.
 
2012-01-11 03:44:27 PM

Babwa Wawa: I'd like to know what kind of arrangement the govt has with businesses that are taking these "volunteers". Does the business pay the government for the services? Or do they get the services for free?


Same here. Can we get a Briton to clarify this policy?

If there are an array of temp jobs available to welfare recipients and they are allowed to choose one for a 2-week engagement, say, once a quarter, and the company pays into the welfare system (maybe at below minimum wage)... I think that's alright. It's not forced labor assuming you can opt out of the system entirely and not collect welfare.

Obviously, there would be some sort of first-come, first-served system or lottery because not everyone can choose the same job, so maybe she just didn't make a choice and wound up with this by default?

The only real downside I see is that it might preclude the company in question from hiring (and paying) real employees, but the program could be limited so any company could only exercise this program on a limited basis.
 
2012-01-11 03:44:48 PM

Babwa Wawa: Timid Goddess: An agency make her stop a volunteer position that would increase her ability to be employed to take an unpaid position. She is not getting paid for either position. If she is not getting paid, other than whatever benefits she is gaining from the agency, why is she being forced to give up a position that improves her chances of not needing help from the agency?

I have no evidence of this, but I suspect that Poundland pays the government for the services of these volunteers more than the museum.

Which is exactly why these sort of policies are fairly stupid.


there are a number of major stores which use this sort of scheme I dont think the company pays anything for the temporary staff,
The company takes on unemployed people on the understanding that they are supposed to give them some sort of 'training'.

but all that really happens is that the company gets some free labour to do grunt work.
 
2012-01-11 03:44:48 PM
Someone said in the comments (paraphrased heavily) that before a student is accepted into college or continuing ed, they should have to take a mandatory class on exactly what job possibilities exist for someone with that major or course of study. This would include potential salaries, future education or training needed to jump from entry level to getting somewhere in the field, the estimated number of job openings available annually, and the number of qualified applicants vying for said jobs.

We'd have a lot fewer unemployed philosophy majors...
 
2012-01-11 03:44:49 PM
She is what Occupy would have all of us be. She is what the generations of trash fully dependent on the government is.
 
2012-01-11 03:45:56 PM
I'm a Brit (with a philosophy degree, for the record) and I see both sides of the argument. The bottom line isn't that she's being forced to do unpaid work in an area that's unrelated to the job she wants to get, the bottom line is that she must abide by the rules of the benefits system (i.e. government payments to the unemployed) if she wants to continue receiving them.

It is harsh, but TAKE A LOOK OUT OF THE FARKING WINDOW and see what state the world economy is in. She voluntarily went to university to take a course that adds little to her employability and is determined to work only in a sector that is famously difficult to find work in - I have a friend with a Masters in Heritage Management who was lucky to land a job in a castle gift shop paying minimum wage, and that was 15 years ago when the economy was much better. Should the government pay out taxpayers money to her indefinitely until she finds the job she wants and miraculously beats off (!) the 200 other applicants for that job?

I'm really sorry, no graduate wants to be out there stacking shelves but MAN THE FARK UP - I'm not saying she should give up her dreams, I'm just saying she needs to be realistic and isn't going to get much sympathy from me.
 
Displayed 50 of 381 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report