Slave labour jobs available

skyguy19

Lads if you have an opinion about what Currys/dixons are doing why dont you go over to the currys forum and let your feeling be known there. the md is online all the time, fair play to him. theres not many md's speak to Joe public.

starbelgrade

skyguy19 wrote: »

Lads if you have an opinion about what Currys/dixons are doing why dont you go over to the currys forum and let your feeling be known there. the md is online all the time, fair play to him. theres not many md's speak to Joe public.

Currys pay Boards to have a consumer forum on the site & they pay a representative of the company to post replies there. I would say "fair play" to them because makes good business sense, but he's certainly not doing it out of the goodness of his heart!

Robdude

Eh - I don't see the problem.

The entire point of the internship scheme is to give businesses cheap labour at the tax payers expense. But that's *better* than what the tax payers were getting before (nothing).

If I sit at home and collect the dole - the tax payers are paying.
If I go to work an internship - the tax payers are still paying, but a company in Ireland is benefiting. As a whole, we're all better off if our resources are being utilized; if I can do work, even something as simple as moving boxes - I can contribute to the economy. Work gets done. That stimulates the economy. Even if you are as cynical as possible - and that money goes straight into a CEOs pocket - it still gets taxed. That's a far better return on investment than 0. And it has the added benefit of putting me to work. Idle hands do the devils work and all that jazz.

It seems like the lessor of two evils to me.

mikemac1

Robdude wrote: »

If I go to work an internship - the tax payers are still paying, but a company in Ireland is benefiting. As a whole, we're all better off if our resources are being utilized; if I can do work, even something as simple as moving boxes - I can contribute to the economy.

It seems like the lessor of two evils to me.

And the company decide not to create any more jobs and instead use interns.

Do you think the likes of Tesco and Currys cannot afford to hire new staff?
They certainly can but choose not to hire new staff, instead get taxpayers to pay their payroll.

It'd be different if these were struggling Irish startups looking to expand and export.

The economy isn't benefiting here, we don't have extra paid workers stacking shelves earning and spending money.

Robdude

mikemac1 wrote: »

And the company decide not to create any more jobs and instead use interns.

Do you think the likes of Tesco and Currys cannot afford to hire new staff?
They certainly can but choose not to hire new staff, instead get taxpayers to pay their payroll.

It'd be different if these were struggling Irish startups looking to expand and export.

The economy isn't benefiting here, we don't have extra paid workers stacking shelves earning and spending money.

The unemployement rate was awfully high *before* the internship program came into being. And there are a lot of checks and balances to prevent rampant abuse.

The program is only scheduled to last two years.
The number of interns you can hire is related to the number of employees you have.
The interns cannot be used to displace existing workers.
The interns cannot have a prior relationship with the companies.
The interns cannot work for more than 9 months.
After the internship period is completed a new one cannot be hired for an additional 3 months.

If this program had been around for years - I'd agree with you. There is room for exploitation. But it's been around since July - and it will last for two years. The entire program exists *in response* to high unemployeement

mikemac1

Robdude wrote: »

The entire program exists *in response* to high unemployeement

Doing what governments do best

Shift people onto schemes to bring down the live register and then proudly declare unemployment has gone down

Robdude

mikemac1 wrote: »

Doing what governments do best

Shift people onto schemes to bring down the live register and then proudly declare unemployment has gone down

No argument there.

Greenmachine

Just a blatant abuse of the scheme.
This in no way is a graduate role.
Why not pay people for working in community project.
Litter picking, hedge trimming give people a better sense of community.
In any given town there are people doing this every day in contact with politician.
These people would be seen as pillars in a community.
Why not talk to some of these people.
I am sure they would be grateful for extra hands.

Or another suggestion, one to increase pride in Irish made goods and crafts.
To encourage people to work with craft people in any capacity from learning a craft to offering admin help to the crafts council or their member.
It these good could be brought to market cheaper, we would be less likely to buy exported craft product that cost us job.

tayto lover

Robdude wrote: »

Eh - I don't see the problem.

The entire point of the internship scheme is to give businesses cheap labour at the tax payers expense. But that's *better* than what the tax payers were getting before (nothing).

If I sit at home and collect the dole - the tax payers are paying.
If I go to work an internship - the tax payers are still paying, but a company in Ireland is benefiting. As a whole, we're all better off if our resources are being utilized; if I can do work, even something as simple as moving boxes - I can contribute to the economy. Work gets done. That stimulates the economy. Even if you are as cynical as possible - and that money goes straight into a CEOs pocket - it still gets taxed. That's a far better return on investment than 0. And it has the added benefit of putting me to work. Idle hands do the devils work and all that jazz.

It seems like the lessor of two evils to me.

Are the companies paying anything to the Government to aid the plight of the country? Probably not.
These companies are just making hay on the pretext that they are giving
valuable work experience to these interns. They whole country knows that this is not the case. They are getting free labour and our uncaring Government are allowing them to exploit its people. Simple as.

Acacia

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This just reeks of begrudgery to me. I have work, that would be what matters to me. The amount of profit the company is making wouldn't come into it.

So it's begrudgery to demand a fair day's pay for a day's work from a hugely profitable company? I've heard it all now.

There's been some staggeringly twisted logic used to defind cretins like Tesco/Dixon's on this thread but that really takes the biscuit!:pac:

Doctor Jimbob

Acacia wrote: »

So it's begrudgery to demand a fair day's pay for a day's work from a hugely profitable company? I've heard it all now.

There's been some staggeringly twisted logic used to defind cretins like Tesco/Dixon's on this thread but that really takes the biscuit!:pac:

At least it's logic.

Acacia

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

At least it's logic.

Not really though, it's just trying to justify a profitable company exploiting people.

I just don't see how it's begrudgery to want to be paid for the work you do, and being annoyed that a company is profiting off your free labour.

Not much logic in defending that, tbh.

Guy:Incognito

Ace2007 wrote: »

but this is FG in power - it is lol if you think they are going to fix anything, The only reason why FG are in power is by default, there was no other option than FF.

Was this not Joan Burtons baby?


As for the "job" , its ridiculous. Are we to assume that DSG are so strapped for cash they cant afford to pay minimum wage to 3 extra peopkle despite apparently needing them?

partyatmygaff

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

At least it's logic.

What logic?

The only reason you've given so far to justify doing work like shelf stacking for private businesses is that it's "Better than nothing" and that any work is better than no work. You haven't made any valid arguments let alone anything sound.

donkey balls

Years ago I worked delivering furniture and white goods as a drivers helper and believe me it was tough going, this was in the 90s when unemployment was still high yet a small Irish company managed to pay me a wage.
With this internship scam some private companies with thanks to the govt raid on peoples private pensions (that's were the extra €50 is coming from) are falling over them selves to get free labour,I also noticed on the link the op posted that there looking for some sort of apprentice to be trained up on installing tv fridge etc and get trained up on driving a truck etc with a salary that to me seems ok.
But to work for nothing is madness.

DonkeyStyle \o/

ThePower11 wrote: »

I can see it now, guy at an interview is asked "what experience have you in this engineering field",

Interviewee: "well I stacked shelves in Tesco for 9 months"

Interviewer: "really? when can you start?".

I got a rather nasty bollocking at an interview for including the unskilled/unrelated jobs I had on my CV. I guess he didn't buy into the whole anything-is-better than nothing approach so many people here are fond of.

Robdude

I can see it now, guy at an interview is asked "what experience have you in this engineering field",

Interviewee: "well I stacked shelves in Tesco for 9 months"

Interviewer: "really? when can you start?".

That might be an extreme example.

First - you apply for these internships. That means you won't work one that you didn't agree to work. You aren't assigned to them and forced to work. If you are in the engineering field - stacking shelves might not be a valuable opportunity for you. If NONE of the internships are a good fit for you - guess what? You are in the exact same situtuation you'd be in if there were no internships at all.

Second - not everyone is an engineer. A lot of people work retail positions or stack boxes full-time. And 9 months stacking shelves in Tesco is actually relevent experience.

Third - if someone asked you about your experience IN A PARTICULAR FIELD I'd expect them to look at you funny if the first thing out of your mouth is anything outside of that field. Regardless of whether or not it was an internship.

Kumejima

Acacia wrote: »

Not really though, it's just trying to justify a profitable company exploiting people.

I just don't see how it's begrudgery to want to be paid for the work you do, and being annoyed that a company is profiting off your free labour.

Not much logic in defending that, tbh.

If you want to be paid for the work you do, why would you take up an unpaid internship? Surely the clue is in the title?

As far as I know Currys aren't going around in dogcatcher vans rounding up stray unemployed.

If you sign up for an unpaid position you've no right to bitch. If you don't want to sign up, don't. But if others do, what's it to you? Or should people get your approval for their life choices

czmilos

I have been unemployed for 4yrs now and Ive got not much experience or qualifications. Ive done some IT courses and I know id have more knowledge of products then most working in these places.

I might apply for this, im getting on and i dont see any other way back into employment.

EUSSR

czmilos wrote: »

I have been unemployed for 4yrs now and Ive got not much experience or qualifications. Ive done some IT courses and I know id have more knowledge of products then most working in these places.

I might apply for this, im getting on and i dont see any other way back into employment.

If you can, try and move to the UK for a while. Ireland is really fecked and while job hunting won't be a paradise affair over there, the UK is not as reliant on the EU as we are. They are economically stronger at this point. Not spectacular. Just stronger. Get out of Ireland for a while. Infact, run from Ireland. There is nothing here. I learnt that the hard way.

Good luck. And keep the courses up. They will only help your knowledge mate.

theTinker

czmilos wrote: »

I have been unemployed for 4yrs now and Ive got not much experience or qualifications. Ive done some IT courses and I know id have more knowledge of products then most working in these places.

I might apply for this, im getting on and i dont see any other way back into employment.

Are you looking for work in the IT sector? There are lots of jobs there, My company and all my friends companies(also IT focused or have large IT departments) are always fighting for good skilled workers. Its the only sector ive found that hasnt really taken much of a hit in the industry

theTinker

Is there ANY safe guards in place that will stop companies like dixons from letting staff go, either through redundancy, or through reduction of working hours(easily done in most contracts) and simply hiring more of these free internships to do the work?

It seems like a very simple and plausiable step to reduce payed workers hours, and increase free labour hours. Infact they'd be silly not to do it once they get the free workers.

i'm completely against this scheme, I think it will undermine basic working reasons and safeguards. Its slave labour for large companies like this. Non skilled payed workers should quake in thier boots if free labour is suddenily entering thier workplace. Its basically the reversal of thier safety nets.

From the companies point of view, they've just been given rights to hire people for FAR less than minimal wage. All scenarioes will play out from that starting point basis.

Azureus

I agree with the above completely-I know of a lot of jobs who have reduced the hours of their paid workers and filled in the gaps with interns. Its ridiculous. I'm all for people getting experience, but at the expense of other people earning a wage it's madness.
If I was running a company, Id think this internship scheme is the best thing since sliced bread-free labour, fecking fantastic!

MyKeyG

Kumejima wrote: »

If you want to be paid for the work you do, why would you take up an unpaid internship? Surely the clue is in the title?

As far as I know Currys aren't going around in dogcatcher vans rounding up stray unemployed.

If you sign up for an unpaid position you've no right to bitch. If you don't want to sign up, don't. But if others do, what's it to you? Or should people get your approval for their life choices

Do you not believe in protest? Just because there are people who subscribe to the idea I have no right to protest about it?

As far as I can see the majority of people on this thread are attacking the initiative and how it's regulated not the people who choose to avail of it. In fact the poster you replied to was slamming the company not the worker.

Sephiroth_dude

what a joke,how can they get away with that?

Acacia

Kumejima wrote: »

If you want to be paid for the work you do, why would you take up an unpaid internship? Surely the clue is in the title?

As far as I know Currys aren't going around in dogcatcher vans rounding up stray unemployed.

If you sign up for an unpaid position you've no right to bitch. If you don't want to sign up, don't. But if others do, what's it to you? Or should people get your approval for their life choices

But it's the whole idea of unpaid internships that I have a problem with. I fully understand what the 'title' means, so enough of the smart-arsery please.

Of course, Currys/Dixon's aren't going around marching people off to the gulags... what they are doing is exploiting people who are desperate for work, while undercutting the pay/benefits of their currents workers, all at a cost to the tax-payer. Still seems pretty bad to me. Oh, and for the record, the dole does keep a record of jobs and unpaid internships that you apply or not apply for. When I was on it, I was pretty much forced to join up for FAS. And if they do sort out some sort of unpaid experience for you, it looks pretty bad when you turn it down (even if it's some crap like loading fridges into a van for minimum wage.) So you don't really have the freedom of choice that some posters on here imagine.

Spare me the "do other people need your approval for their life choices" bollox please. You know full well that's not what I said. If you can argue without putting words in my mouth, come back to me.:rolleyes:

louloubella

I am a professional and I would shovel **** if it put food on the table.
Don't speak for others.

stovelid wrote: »

Work isn't a moral state of mind. It's labour for money.

As if any of the pontificators here with professional careers would lump fridges around for less than minimum wage.

louloubella

If people want to do it, where is the problem? The word exploitation is a bit much.
Volunteering as a classroom assistant is honorable but its not much good for the child when your sister is snapped up for a paying job. I have seen this happen in the voluntary sector- when it comes to education of all things we cannot be relying on volunteers- it is not sustainable! I know what you mean though, the voluntary sector would benefit more from these workers but again- If certain people ( how many have even availed of this?) would like to do this work because it suits them for whatever reason, where is the problem?

MyKeyG wrote: »

The thread is littered with lots of different ways one can feel useful such as volunteer work. My sister volunteers four days a week as a classroom assistant and has the time of her life. THESE are the positions government initiatives should be investing in not a multinational company taking advantage of the idle.

To say this example benefits anyone but the company in any constructive way is ridiculous.

Acacia

louloubella wrote: »

I am a professional and I would shovel **** if it put food on the table.
Don't speak for others.

It's not just about the money though - putting food on the table. As an unpaid intern, I doubt you would be entitled to same holidays, benefits (healthcare, pension, etc) that a 'proper' worker would be, even though you're doing the same work as them.

As an aside, why should the dole- designed to support somebody when they are out of work, NOT a living wage- be used to pay someobdy for carrying out cheap labour so a large multinational can benefit?

If somebody can answer that, I would be most grateful.

Acacia

louloubella wrote: »

If people want to do it, where is the problem? The word exploitation is a bit much.
Volunteering as a classroom assistant is honorable but its not much good for the child when your sister is snapped up for a paying job. I have seen this happen in the voluntary sector- when it comes to education of all things we cannot be relying on volunteers- it is not sustainable!

It's not though. It's exactly what it is- it's preying on people's desperation for work/experience/ desire to just get out of the house, while not having to pay them a penny, no matter how hard they work. It's ingenious really- you don't get paid, the work is your reward, however those at the top of the chain get richer and richer.

Brilliant!

MyKeyG

louloubella wrote: »

If people want to do it, where is the problem? The word exploitation is a bit much.
Volunteering as a classroom assistant is honorable but its not much good for the child when your sister is snapped up for a paying job. I have seen this happen in the voluntary sector- when it comes to education of all things we cannot be relying on volunteers- it is not sustainable! I know what you mean though, the voluntary sector would benefit more from these workers but again- If certain people ( how many have even availed of this?) would like to do this work because it suits them for whatever reason, where is the problem?

Nor do I think anyone should rely on volunteering work! What's happening here is in my opinion the dictionary definition of the word exploitation.

I've said it already and I'll say it again. The issue for me is that THIS IS NOT BEING REGULATED!!! Businesses are not being made to indicate the types of qualifications and trades that are being opened to their applicants. Businesses can hire willy nilly what they need when they need it. Dixons will get 9 months free labour and the applicant will get what exactly?

Anybody they want can avail of this but it does not mean I can't voice my opposition to the 'initiative'.

Sir Oxman

Don't forget Burton and the Govt's words used to describe this scheme - a Job Activation measure.
And their follow-up on that is people will have to engage with this Job Activation measure eventually.

Two years timespan?
If you fall for that, you fell for the insurance levies being temporary measures (almost 30 years on the go now)

If properly run and supervised and at least some of the cost being carried by the employers who benefit most from this, then yes there is an argument that such a scheme (which will be compulsory at some stage IMO) could be of some benefit instead of being a numbers game and obvious undermining of paid work.

Mister Dread

Anybody who takes one of these jobs thinks they are doing the right thing, that they are being proactive and this is what future employers will see. What they actually see is a doormat and a loser who can't manage to find paid employment.

SeaFields

gambiaman wrote: »

Two years timespan?
If you fall for that, you fell for the insurance levies being temporary measures (almost 30 years on the go now)

I didn't know they had put a time limit on it. How long is left? Are they counting from the start of the WPP or is JobBridge considered different and the start of the 2 years?

Also it cannot be overstated enough. Joan Burton, the minister who is keeping this scheme in place, is a Labour party minister.

Sir Oxman

SeaFields wrote: »

I didn't know they had put a time limit on it. How long is left? Are they counting from the start of the WPP or is JobBridge considered different and the start of the 2 years?

Also it cannot be overstated enough. Joan Burton, the minister who is keeping this scheme in place, is a Labour party minister.

Supposedly two years from last July - the funding of it by the raid on private pensions is to last 4 years...
The WPP scheme is seperate to this, the only difference being I believe WPP does not even offer 50e extra.
The oversight is about the same - zero.

Robdude

Mister Dread wrote: »

Anybody who takes one of these jobs thinks they are doing the right thing, that they are being proactive and this is what future employers will see. What they actually see is a doormat and a loser who can't manage to find paid employment.

Employers that have that cynical outlook on this program would share it on people on the dole.

Guy A does the internship....he's a doormat and a loser who can't find paid employment.

Guy B does collects the dole for the same time period....he's a loser who can't find paid employment and he's lazy too.

Which would you rather hire? At the very least Guy A has shown he wants to work and is willing to be put up with crap.

Lord TSC

Quick question...

I know I read this discussed before but whats the deal with getting days off to persue actual paying jobs?

I'm a sub teacher who basically works one day every two to three weeks; some times it may be a day a week, sometimes it may be a day a month. Point being, it's inconsistant.

Say I went and signed up for an internship. Would I be allowed take the days off if a school rang with a "real" days work? I can't imagine the intern employer would be all too happy, and it would nuke any chance of a job at the end if I did, but whats the rules there? Or by taking an internship, do I basically have to give up my chosen career path as a teacher, forsaking sub work?

Mister Dread

Robdude wrote: »

Employers that have that cynical outlook on this program would share it on people on the dole.

Guy A does the internship....he's a doormat and a loser who can't find paid employment.

Guy B does collects the dole for the same time period....he's a loser who can't find paid employment and he's lazy too.

Which would you rather hire? At the very least Guy A has shown he wants to work and is willing to be put up with crap.

Guy C, the man who has the skills and proven paid work history showing that at least somebody thought he was worth paying to do a job.

And a person who is not willing to work for free is not lazy.

Ace2007

With the amount of rubbished posted over in the soccer thread, boards.ie should get in on the act, and "hire" these interns and make them mods - might clean this place up.

Robdude

Mister Dread wrote: »

Guy C, the man who has the skills and proven paid work history showing that at least somebody thought he was worth paying to do a job.

And a person who is not willing to work for free is not lazy.

Of course you'd hire Guy C first. And that's why the people who are unemployed have such a hard time getting a job. Being unemployed looks really bad. You want the guy who has never, ever had any trouble getting a job; who has a great work history, great experience, and great references.

But those guys aren't the ones that are unemployed.

Robdude

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Quick question...

I know I read this discussed before but whats the deal with getting days off to persue actual paying jobs?

I'm a sub teacher who basically works one day every two to three weeks; some times it may be a day a week, sometimes it may be a day a month. Point being, it's inconsistant.

Say I went and signed up for an internship. Would I be allowed take the days off if a school rang with a "real" days work? I can't imagine the intern employer would be all too happy, and it would nuke any chance of a job at the end if I did, but whats the rules there? Or by taking an internship, do I basically have to give up my chosen career path as a teacher, forsaking sub work?

This was the closest I could find:

27. Do I get time off during an Internship?
Although you are not an employee of the company you should still be given adequate time off for attending job interviews during the placement to visit your local SW office and Employment Services office in order to facilitate your job seeking activities.

I'm truthfully not sure how it would be handled in your situation though.

Sir Oxman

Robdude wrote: »

Of course you'd hire Guy C first. And that's why the people who are unemployed have such a hard time getting a job. Being unemployed looks really bad. You want the guy who has never, ever had any trouble getting a job; who has a great work history, great experience, and great references.

But those guys aren't the ones that are unemployed.

You have got to be kidding me.

Joey the lips

Sorry... Can someone please explain what dixons is doing wrong...

More importently... why the govt is allowing dixons use shift work in this scheme. Shift work is not a requirement of govt job,

Your blameing the wrong people imo and this is the type of scheme i would expect from a right wing fine gael..

snickerpuss

My main problem with internships is what comes afterwards? In my profession there is currently 1 paying job and maybe 20+ internships. Because why should the employers bother to pay when there's an endless stream of hugely qualified people lining up to work for free? What does the experience get you when all paying jobs are now internships. Bloody depressing after working hard to get experience and qualify.

laoch na mona

working for a company for free is wrong they can afford to pay
i rather work on a fas community employment scheme that way you at least work for the community

Lord TSC

Robdude wrote: »

This was the closest I could find:

27. Do I get time off during an Internship?
Although you are not an employee of the company you should still be given adequate time off for attending job interviews during the placement to visit your local SW office and Employment Services office in order to facilitate your job seeking activities.

I'm truthfully not sure how it would be handled in your situation though.

Yeah Cause the problem would be that I wouldn't be able to give much forward notice to the intern employer; most times, it's a call at ten past nine and a mad dash into the school. I can't imagine they would be thrilled with an employee who randomly takes days off....

Joey the lips

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your blameing the wrong people imo and this is the type of scheme i would expect from a right wing fine gael..

eh Labour are all over this crap

they have been on this bandwagon championing it since when it was the WPP scheme!!!

http://www.politics.ie/forum/labour/126523-labour-party-exploiting-workers-wtf.html

and screen shot of the labour party website recruiting free slaves back in 2010
http://i43.tinypic.com/2lscqqu.jpg

Joey the lips

Deleted User wrote: »

eh Labour are all over this crap

they have been on this bandwagon championing it since when it was the WPP scheme!!!

http://www.politics.ie/forum/labour/126523-labour-party-exploiting-workers-wtf.html

and screen shot of the labour party website recruiting free slaves back in 2010
http://i43.tinypic.com/2lscqqu.jpg

Oh Mea culpa.

That surprised me so it seems we now have a govt of ego's Thanks for that.

starbelgrade

snickerpuss wrote: »

My main problem with internships is what comes afterwards? In my profession there is currently 1 paying job and maybe 20+ internships.

My main problem with this thread is that people are exaggerating or making stuff up as they see fit to suit their own viewpoint & it makes for a very disingenuous argument.

partyatmygaff

starbelgrade wrote: »

My main problem with this thread is that people are exaggerating or making stuff up as they see fit to suit their own viewpoint & it makes for a very disingenuous argument.

Where has that actually occurred? As in, who made things up to suit their argument and who exaggerated?