Working for free breached laws banning slavery and forced labour

[MrSmith 10]

 

Why don't they just pay wages

 

My nephews did work experience at pound land, pound land didn't have any job vacancies, they didn't need an employee, they had all the employees they needed, they took him on for work experience but didn't need him. They had no reason to pay him because they didn't need him, but the experience he gained did lead to full time employment with another company. Pound land did him a favour without which he would likely still be unemployed.

[I1L2T3 10]

That seems exactly what they are arguing against. She got work experience in retail, she now works part time in retail, not shelf stacking, she has moved on to checkouts these days. (whether the pen museum benefits from her largesse these days is unknown)

 

Nobody is arguing against the concept of work experience.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

Im not attacking her at all for what role she is doing. You seem to be the one putting words in my mouth. I have said nothing like that.

Okay. I apologise. I thought you were inferring that because she is doing the menial work, that she "is not going to be a store director".

If she had got on with it - who knows, she might have been offered this role at Morrisons even quicker and thus got off the benefits system even quicker.

She was perfectly within her right to reject it though. It is not the place of state to force people to labour, for free, for private companies. Secondly, you're just playing with supposition. You don't know what the outcome would've been if she had done this work for Poundland.

By pratting about and refusing to do (in my opinion) a more relaistic work placement

What do you mean realistic?

Working in a museum isn't real work? Poundland is real work?

and instead keep doing her precious pen museum role with its once in a lifetime staff turnover she has potentially prelonged her time on benefit and thus taxpayer money has had to fund her for longer than necessary.

Here is where your conclusion goes wild. Firstly, the pen museum being "precious" to her is your emotive. It was voluntary work for her to do, and beyond that any feelings you project onto her are made up.

 

Secondly, you're playing with supposition again. That she was on benefits a longer time than she had to be because she wouldn't work at Poundland for her benefit money.

 

I can do this too - it's easy. "If she had worked at Poundland, she'd be a drug addled mother of two now and living in a council flat - thus voluntary work at the museum is a good thing."

Im sure lots of people who unfortunately end up on the dole would love to do something close to their dream job in the hope that one day that rare vacancy will come up. However, when the pubic purse is footing the bill for your living costs you need a reality check and do everything you can to take ANY suitable job.

She has taken a suitable job, at a supermarket. It's not a complex narrative to follow - is it?

Edited February 22, 2013 by Chris_Sleeps
Grammar