Slave labour jobs available

Wompa1

I'd consider doing an internship somewhere if I was unemployed for a year or more. Not just for the extra 50 but because I'd be worried by the gap in my work history for my CV and think the more recent your work experience even if it is not in your field the better it looks.

starbelgrade

partyatmygaff wrote: »

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

In my last post I was referring to snickerpuss' claim that "In my profession there is currently 1 paying job and maybe 20+ internships", which is simply untrue. It may be possible that there are 20+ interns per paid worker, but certainly not under this scheme.

But the worst offender has to be Ace2007 who has done nothing but mis-quote, selectively quote and attribute false statements to other posters simply to suit his / her own argument.

As I said before, I've no problem with people having an opinion on an issue & arguing their point - but I do have an issue with people using underhand debating tactics.

Guy:Incognito

Joey the lips wrote: »

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

If DSG need 3 employees, do you think they are stuggling so badly as a company that they cant afford to pay the 3 of them minimum wage?

starbelgrade

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If DSG need 3 employees, do you think they are stuggling so badly as a company that they cant afford to pay the 3 of them minimum wage?

That still doesn't show where Dixons themselves are doing any wrong. Under the terms for eligibility for the scheme, they are perfectly entitled to do this.

partyatmygaff

starbelgrade wrote: »

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If DSG need 3 employees, do you think they are stuggling so badly as a company that they cant afford to pay the 3 of them minimum wage?

That still doesn't show where Dixons themselves are doing any wrong. Under the terms for eligibility for the scheme, they are perfectly entitled to do this.

What is legal and what is right are two different things.

Guy:Incognito

starbelgrade wrote: »

That still doesn't show where Dixons themselves are doing any wrong. Under the terms for eligibility for the scheme, they are perfectly entitled to do this.

If nothign else its morally wrong imo. It's exploitation.

They are asking people to work alongside others and do the same job that are getting at least minimum wage, for nothing when they can well afford to pay them.

If DSG had put an add up in 2005 looking for someone to work as an "intern" doing these jobs, would you have been defending them? I highly doubt the government would have been anyway.

Badgermonkey

starbelgrade wrote: »

That still doesn't show where Dixons themselves are doing any wrong. Under the terms for eligibility for the scheme, they are perfectly entitled to do this.

It's difficult to come to a judgement on the rights or wrongs of DSG's participation in the scheme without knowledge of the following:

1. How many workers have DSG taken in under WPP?
2. What proportion of those on the scheme have subsequently been offered employment by DSG?
3. Have any training / mentoring initiatives been put in place specifically for WPP workers? (Declan's reply seemed to intimate not)

Guy:Incognito

Badgermonkey wrote: »

It's difficult to come to a judgement on the rights or wrongs of DSG's participation in the scheme without knowledge of the following:

1. How many workers have DSG taken in under WPP?
2. What proportion of those on the scheme have subsequently been offered employment by DSG?
3. Have any training / mentoring initiatives been put in place specifically for WPP workers? (Declan's reply seemed to intimate not)

It doesnt really matter though. Even if they are keeping some people on they are using the scheme as a 9 month free trial period for new employees they would otherwise have to pay at least minimum wage too.

All their other employees were hired and the 13 week (iirc) trial period covered in law is there to make sure they work out. But they have to pay the people during that time.

starbelgrade

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What is legal and what is right are two different things.

True. But when it comes to social protection, that is the responsibility of the government and the electorate - it should never be left to the likes of private enterprise to decide what is right or wrong.

Badgermonkey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It doesnt really matter though. Even if they are keeping some people on they are using the scheme as a 9 month free trial period for new employees they would otherwise have to pay at least minimum wage too.

I would excoriate DSG if they were shown to be using WPP for mere commercial expediency and in the knowledge that those taken on were on a 'road to nowhere', with little chance of employment post participation.

Though I'd agree in principle folks should be paid, there may be instances in which a benefit will be derived in time, which will mitigate the less palatable aspects of WPP.

starbelgrade

Badgermonkey wrote: »

It's difficult to come to a judgement on the rights or wrongs of DSG's participation in the scheme without knowledge of the following:

1. How many workers have DSG taken in under WPP?
2. What proportion of those on the scheme have subsequently been offered employment by DSG?
3. Have any training / mentoring initiatives been put in place specifically for WPP workers? (Declan's reply seemed to intimate not)

It would be interesting to know the answers to those. I'd be particularly surprised if no training or mentoring was being provided - that's one of the focal points of the scheme.

Katgurl

I do agree with the majority of posters here in that the sheme is flawed and does not protect employees by allowing these unskilled jobs to use interns and reduce paid work for existing workers.

However the companies are doing noting wrong, they are utilising an available resource which is benefitting their company.

To argue they shouldn't be taking advantage of the government support is as ridiculous as saying students shouldn't avail of grants or people shouldn't claim tax relief on rent or whatever.
And I've said it again but this attitude that it's ok to draw the dole and not work by choice is toxic.

Millicent

Katgurl wrote: »

I do agree with the majority of posters here in that the sheme is flawed and does not protect employees by allowing these unskilled jobs to use interns and reduce paid work for existing workers.

No argument there.

Katgurl wrote: »

However the companies are doing noting wrong, they are utilising an available resource which is benefitting their company.

This argument is fallacious. Just because a resource is available, doesn't mean it's not wrong to avail of said resource.

Katgurl wrote: »

To argue they shouldn't be taking advantage of the government support is as ridiculous as saying students shouldn't avail of grants or people shouldn't claim tax relief on rent or whatever.
And I've said it again but this attitude that it's ok to draw the dole and not work by choice is toxic.

I would argue that there is a difference between a solvent private company taking on workers at a cost to the government and a cash-strapped student who needs a grant to pay his/her way through college (and yes, I'm aware that there are those who take the grant who could do without it. I don't applaud those people either). Taking tax relief on rent is an entitlement; taking on workers at a cost to the taxpayer is not, or at least it is not in any country I want to claim as my own.

And just because people do not want to be exploited by private enterprise does not mean that they are "not work[ing] by choice". Unemployment does not and should necessitate them to abandon their principles and ideals of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

allibastor

it is a completly flawed system. the companys who place ads for un-skilled manuel jobs have very little eumployment appeal, i would love to see Governement figures on these types of jobs which turn From WWP places into actual places. all that happens is they get a worker for 9 months, get the work out of them, then show them the door and hire in a new WWP worker.

it is taking advantage of a government who do no have the cop-on to put in place requirements on having a mentor scheme, or even a decent plan of work on how the placement will benifit the growth of the person. they also take advantage of the want and willingness of some people to work other than sit at home, a trait which is to be admired to be sure in some folks. i know i would rather do something than sit at home all day long. would the governement not be better off to ask these willing and hard workers if they would like to be involved in the community.
how well did some of the towns in dirty old towns come out after a few people pitched in for a few weeks. would not the extra 50euro a week be better spent there then giving the likes of dixons and tesco reason to lessen the paid work force and supplement it with WWP applicants who are essentially cannon fodder as the skills learned in the job will be minimal and most likely be learned within a few weeks, not 9 months.

starbelgrade

allibastor wrote: »

it is a completly flawed system. the companys who place ads for un-skilled manuel jobs have very little eumployment appeal, i would love to see Governement figures on these types of jobs which turn From WWP places into actual places. all that happens is they get a worker for 9 months, get the work out of them, then show them the door and hire in a new WWP worker.

it is taking advantage of a government who do no have the cop-on to put in place requirements on having a mentor scheme, or even a decent plan of work on how the placement will benifit the growth of the person. they also take advantage of the want and willingness of some people to work other than sit at home, a trait which is to be admired to be sure in some folks. i know i would rather do something than sit at home all day long. would the governement not be better off to ask these willing and hard workers if they would like to be involved in the community.
how well did some of the towns in dirty old towns come out after a few people pitched in for a few weeks. would not the extra 50euro a week be better spent there then giving the likes of dixons and tesco reason to lessen the paid work force and supplement it with WWP applicants who are essentially cannon fodder as the skills learned in the job will be minimal and most likely be learned within a few weeks, not 9 months.

Everyone taken on under the scheme is given a contract which specifies what the company intends to teach the intern & what skills are expected they will learn. The company must also assign a mentor. The comapny is then expected to have an induction where all this is explained to the intern & where the terms of the contract are explained, discussed & signed by both parties.

In that respect, the set-up of the system is good. However, I must admit that there is no regulation to check to see if this actually occurs or any regulation of what happens after that. The onus is left on the companies to ensure that they themselves are in compliance. It is therefore only speculation as to how this is working out in general.

Another thing that is just speculation is the suggestion that companies are taking people on for 9 months, letting them go, then taking on someone else. For a start, the scheme hasn't been in operation for 9 months, so that couldn't have happened yet if it were to happen at all and secondly, there's a "cooling off period" of 3 months between interns - ie., if you let an intern go or their contract finishes, you can't take someone else on for another 3 months.

The problem with employing people to do community work is that you have to provide insurance for them as well as supervision - both of which cost money. One way I suppose of getting around those costs is to defer them onto private companies through internships. The flip side is that the companies are likely to make the money back of course.

There are flaws to the system - I would even question the validity of the reasoning behind the whole the whole venture - but some of the flaws you've pointed out are not as black & white as they seem.

allibastor

that is good to learn that every person taking on uder this scheme is given these. though i know people who have started these schemes, were given a brief outline of what was to be expected, then learned they will be doing none of the above. the mentor thing is also something the company may assign to, but in reality the mentor is not there to help you learn, only to keep the governement happy.

and companies that keep multiple interns on this scheme can keep taking them on, the 3 month period only pertains to a particular job. all they need do is re-name the job title and they will get a free intern.

the government needs to look at if the specifications being laid down by the companies are being met and if the training that was promised is being delivered. though i am still unsure as to what training floor staff will get or the poor lad hauling electical equipment in and out of dixons.

Ace2007

starbelgrade wrote: »

In my last post I was referring to snickerpuss' claim that "In my profession there is currently 1 paying job and maybe 20+ internships", which is simply untrue. It may be possible that there are 20+ interns per paid worker, but certainly not under this scheme.

But the worst offender has to be Ace2007 who has done nothing but mis-quote, selectively quote and attribute false statements to other posters simply to suit his / her own argument.

As I said before, I've no problem with people having an opinion on an issue & arguing their point - but I do have an issue with people using underhand debating tactics.

My argument was that this scheme was good if run properly, you have previoulsy stated that you are going to wait till the 9 months is up before hiring the intern on a full time paid position(which you can afford to pay) which i and others have said is wrong, but you cannot see how this is wrong. Therefore there is no point debating this with you - your viewpoint is flawed.

cloptrop

about time this got some sort of coverage , even if it is in the uk
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4055197/Graduate-Cait-Reilly-legal-action-against-Government-over-allegedly-being-made-to-stack-shelves-in-Poundland.html
what do you make of this dr jimbob

partyatmygaff

cloptrop wrote: »

about time this got some sort of coverage , even if it is in the uk
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4055197/Graduate-Cait-Reilly-legal-action-against-Government-over-allegedly-being-made-to-stack-shelves-in-Poundland.html
what do you make of this dr jimbob

He's already made himself clear.

Any experience is better than no experience. Even if said experience is a hellish existence working as government-trafficked labour for a private organisation as a shelf stacker with neither pay nor anything that could remotely assist them in getting a paid job.

LighterGuy

You know, these internships are a joke.
I can understand someone being unemployed and bored in the house. I can understand someone who thinks by accepting an internship they can use it to get an actual paying job ...

But it doesnt matter what a persons motives are ... they would just be getting used.

Keep trying for an actual job. Fill your days up with hobbies or learning something new. Take a course and gain a new skill. People only work for free for a charity. Not a place like Dixons or what have you.

JONJO THE MISER

Have told loads of people about this, a few people used to buy in Currys but wont from now on, im telling this to as many people as i can and to boycott them.
Lets see if Currys will have a black tie dinner affair in Dublin next year.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76491825#post76491825

The TDs want to start hiring interns to run leinster house rather than reduce their pay and expenses.

This highlights another flaw in the internship scheme in how it distorts the labour market - existing uncompetitive wage rates are protected by hiring interns. Companies then become hooked on interns to keep this new balance. No new employment. Bad for the state bad for the unemployed.

naoise80

My reply in the thread that got closed.

I think you'll find that they have cut their pay and expenses.

Where have they said that they "think they are doing people a favour"?

What's wrong with people on the dole gaining some experience that may well help them get a job in the future?

Why do you say they are vermin? What are they gaining by doing this?

Millicent

naoise80 wrote: »

My reply in the thread that got closed.

I think you'll find that they have cut their pay and expenses.

Where have they said that they "think they are doing people a favour"?

What's wrong with people on the dole gaining some experience that may well help them get a job in the future?

Why do you say they are vermin? What are they gaining by doing this?

What jobs? Entry level roles are being displaced by internships.

Dues Bellator

why can this not be implemented for small Irish company's that are struggling to pay staff .
if it is already my bad .

naoise80

naoise80 wrote: »

My reply in the thread that got closed.

I think you'll find that they have cut their pay and expenses.

Where have they said that they "think they are doing people a favour"?

What's wrong with people on the dole gaining some experience that may well help them get a job in the future?

Why do you say they are vermin? What are they gaining by doing this?

Oh come on now, if they need more workers they should cut the pay of the existing politicians and pay for staff that way.

Its a clear distortion of the labour market

almanu

almanu wrote: »

why can this not be implemented for small Irish company's that are struggling to pay staff .
if it is already my bad .

Because it shouldnt be the job of the taxpayer to jaysus fund the bleedin payroll of any private business! Will they give us a cut of the profit? If so then is the state to buy up struggling businesses and create loads of new semi states? How about full on communism?

Warped

Lord TSC

almanu wrote: »

why can this not be implemented for small Irish company's that are struggling to pay staff .

Because then we're talking about a completly different scheme.

A work placement program should be used to train the intern and provide him with valuable knowledge and education; to give the intern the chance to participate in a working environment; to learn new skills and abilities. As such, they should be in businesses or offices whereby they get a nine month education on various aspects of whatever field they are placed in. The majority of the benefit should go to the intern.

It should not be about providing cheap, minimum wage jobs to struggling companies whose job requires no training, no experience and offers neither in any substantial way in the long term to the intern. Too many of the placements (at least originally, but it relates to your point) were jobs which required two days training and then were simply minimum wage jobs which now did not even pay minimum wage. It is not up to the tax payer and the government to prop up failing private businesses, and it is certainly not the intern's position to try and help a failing private enterprise either.

Currys PC World: Declan

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Because then we're talking about a completly different scheme.

A work placement program should be used to train the intern and provide him with valuable knowledge and education; to give the intern the chance to participate in a working environment; to learn new skills and abilities. As such, they should be in businesses or offices whereby they get a nine month education on various aspects of whatever field they are placed in. The majority of the benefit should go to the intern.

It should not be about providing cheap, minimum wage jobs to struggling companies whose job requires no training, no experience and offers neither in any substantial way in the long term to the intern. Too many of the placements (at least originally, but it relates to your point) were jobs which required two days training and then were simply minimum wage jobs which now did not even pay minimum wage. It is not up to the tax payer and the government to prop up failing private businesses, and it is certainly not the intern's position to try and help a failing private enterprise either.

This subject came up on the Currys & PC World forum a number of weeks ago and was closed down fairly quickly. I wasn't aware of the existence or the size and scope of this thread until a poster on our own forum linked me to it yesterday. I think it worthwhile to share my perspective on it. When you run a company employing 700 people in Ireland and you're pretty well buried on a public forum, then so be it. At the same time I would prefer that people would bury or boycott or tell their mates that we're the world's worst from a more informed position. So here goes on that. Apologies but this is going to be a long post.

I need to put this in context by telling you about KNOWHOW. We have four brands in Ireland, the trading brands Currys, PC World and Dixons Travel. What we launched last year was KNOWHOW and this is the service brand under which we intend to develop a technology service proposition. When the world changes and you compete with online without their stores and so on, and when technology gets more complicated so that advice becomes a source of real advantage over online and when you have an infrastructure that can call on people's homes and do things for them, it makes sense to bring all of that together under one brand name. And that is KNOWHOW and we see it as important in how we develop our business in Ireland over the next number of year.

I've looked at the 46 pages of the thread and the comments are consistent along of the lines of ;

1; We are using free labour to substitute paid labour
2; The jobs are menial and require no training, which supports the first point
3; Large or profitable companies should not be behaving in this way.

To deal with point 1, there is no job displacement here. Indeed there are no jobs. Going back to the KNOWHOW point above, we have significant plans to grow this part of our business. But it hasn't grown yet. There are no current vacancies in our KNOWHOW set up and there will be none until such time as the business reached a level where we would want to recruit people

This links to point 2. I've seen a lot on this thread about how the general operative training position is only about moving fridges back and forth and so on. And it's not like that.

We don't have a product warehouse in Ireland. What we have in Dublin West is a central logistics hub for all the products that KNOWHOW will handle in the course of a year. We fix 30,000 laptops / desktops / netbooks alone per year and that's 60,000 products movements into the hub from people's homes, to a repair centre , back again and then back to people's homes. And God help you if you lose one.

On top of that every single home delivered TV and appliance passes through the hub. They've got to come in, be protected ( this is people's product as well as data ) get sorted into their various ongoing logistic points and be gotten in and out of the hub at speed. All of the laptops are scanned and tracked and what the general operative is going to be involved in is the making sure that the KNOWHOW drivers that are in the hub at the crack of dawn have a full set of product organised for them with all the necessary paperwork in hand so that they can hit the hub quickly and get out quickly again so that customers get a better level of service than anybody else can give.

Our hub has probably 100,000 movements in and out and is a military style and very slick operation. I think if someone with not a whit of experience spends nine months training in there, starting out doing the heavy lifting and ending up scanning product through the system, organising it for our KNOWHOW personnel and doing that with a 0 % error rate they're going to be a hell of a lot more skilled at the end of it and far more employable that they are now. If the growth comes they'll be prime candidates if we decide we need full time roles. You'd be mad not to offer someone who knows the business and can do the job the full time job.

The same goes for the customer service advisor and I won't bore you with more detail on this, But suffice to say it's not an easy job, our systems to support customers are complicated and require a lot of learning. And that's before you ever talk to a customer and , let me assure you, you need quite a lot of knowledge before you're ever going to be allowed do that.

The descriptions I've read on this thread that imply that the people who would come for training with us are some description of gofers managed by goons is pretty Dickensian. I prefer to think of Kennedy's question to the guys sweeping the floor in Cape Canaveral who said his job was " putting someone on the moon ". The job of our KNOWHOW people is to deliver a great service, whatever level they are at.

I think the mistake we made was to advertise this work placement scheme on Irishjobs.ie. That gives the impression that these are real jobs with no pay and I can of course understand why that would inflame opinions. The reality is that we have two choices, either to recruit permanent positions when they are needed and find people with the requisite skills and have them hit the ground running or to take in people with no previous experience and take the training time to mould them to a KNOWHOW way of doing things. And if FAS is taking on the training cost that is of course an incentive to go that route. We can train without additional cost and FAS get a long term unemployed person with poor prospects into a far better position.

The latter course appealed to our KNOWHOW team and it certainly appeals to me. It gives people who are long term unemployed the chance to get in with a decent employer and get themselves used to a job, trained in a very fast moving and professional environment and systems trained also. Were we to wait until we had real jobs available that type of inexperienced individual wouldn't get next nor near an interview. And I speak as someone who spent 18 months unemployed in the early 1980's . There was no such thing as FAS or Work Placement then and I would have bitten off any hand to get some experience in 1982.

The idea that FAS would let any company, particularly one of our size, use them to displace labour is stretching it a bit. We had to go through a rigorous process to show to FAS that there were no actual vacancies in the business and that these were and are genuine training / work placement positions.

In addition, what does it say to the 700 people who work for us if we suddenly start replacing real jobs with work placement people ? What better way to turn your own employees against you and demotivate a team that needs to get up in the morning and be in the mood to learn about new technology all the time and try to keep ahead of customers ( not easy ) , greet and approach customers and bring them through a pretty complex sales process with the right attitude. Not a chance in hell would we ever do such a thing as try to replace them with cheap labour.

I'll finish with point 3. Whether we're profitable or not is irrelevant. When we have full time real jobs on offer we fill them. When we think we will have full time jobs coming up we will either wait for the right time to fill them or, if we can train people who might never ordinarily have a chance to work with us, we might take that option too. That's good for us and I think it's good for the country to get people off long term unemployment. It would be even better of course if we could pay a rate of pay to people while we were training them on a work placement scheme but why would be do that if we can get qualified people for the same pay?

Our published accounts in Ireland show a € 7 million loss in our last financial year. But, as I say, that's irrelevant.

Everyone is entitled to any view they want about work placement schemes. Taking the MD's hat off for a moment and speaking personally, I'd be a lot happier if my pension scheme ( I'm an auld fella ) was being raided to pay for jobs initiatives. But these things are needed so so be it. And I'll be happier again if those funds give someone a chance to get some skills and improve their lot in life.

Sorry that was a bit long.

cloptrop

So you arnt training them to move fridges your training them to move fridges with a 100 percent success rate.
In the 9 months they will start on the heavy lifting and work their way up to scanning stuff??????? wtf dude.
And my personal favourite

I'll finish with point 3. Whether we're profitable or not is irrelevant. When we have full time real jobs on offer we fill them. When we think we will have full time jobs coming up we will either wait for the right time to fill them or, if we can train people who might never ordinarily have a chance to work with us, we might take that option too. That's good for us and I think it's good for the country to get people off long term unemployment. It would be even better of course if we could pay a rate of pay to people while we were training them on a work placement scheme but why would be do that if we can get qualified people for the same pay?

Eh because people are already qualified for this and on the dole, because you want to get the first 9 months free , all the heavy lifting and silly stuff that goes with starting a warehouse , eh there are people trained and qualified to do this out of work and your answer is to train more people at taxpayers expense rather than just hire the already qualified people.
This then makes the already qualified <which is a joke in itself considering the position > people drop to the level of the rest of the long term dolies.
Tanks for the list of all your companies I will be boycotting the lot of them.

yourpics

My concern here would be if someone completed the internship would they get a real job at the end of it or just be let go??

And what about the person's dignity? Imagine working beside someone, doing the same work and receiving 50 euro a week while the other person receives a wage.

MungBean

yourpics wrote: »

My concern here would be if someone completed the internship would they get a real job at the end of it or just be let go??

Depends on whether or not there are real positions available. Which there probably wont be if they can dip into the intern pool again and fill them all for free.

It amazes me that a company can have 7 million losses last year, talk about having no available jobs and then spend a length of time talking about how someone may get a job if they are willing to work for free for nine months for that same company and expect people to see it for anything other than what it is. A private company in financial trouble looking to take advantage of a government intern scheme and desperate people to increase their productivity.

donkey balls

I have to laugh at the military precision operation and the hub etc then scanning in products and how big the org is,Years ago I started of working for an airfreight company with f##k all experience yet they paid me a wage and believe me the work we did was more complex than moving fridges etc around all it takes is a bit of cope on and a willingness to learn.

Jesus Nut

During the 9 months, do the Interns get to go on a weekend "Common Purpose" course?

Sir Oxman

You want people trained up on your systems to profit your company - you pay them.
End of story.

cloptrop

the daily mail have reported on it in the Uk sainburys and waterstones have pulled out and Tesco blame it on an IT error haha about time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102228/Tesco-row-advert-unpaid-workers-claims-expenses-plus-benefits-offer-mistake.html

Buceph

Currys & PC World: Declan wrote: »

To deal with point 1, there is no job displacement here. Indeed there are no jobs. Going back to the KNOWHOW point above, we have significant plans to grow this part of our business. But it hasn't grown yet. There are no current vacancies in our KNOWHOW set up and there will be none until such time as the business reached a level where we would want to recruit people

So you've decided to expand your business without investing in it? You're taking a risk to reposition a huge part of your customer service element that could make you viable long term, and you've decided to use my money to pay for it rather than the money you've been making all along. You're going to see if the business works by using the unemployed, and if they roll of the dice pays of, they might get a job. Presuming you don't decide to keep rotating through people on placement schemes.

On top of that every single home delivered TV and appliance passes through the hub. They've got to come in, be protected ( this is people's product as well as data ) get sorted into their various ongoing logistic points and be gotten in and out of the hub at speed. All of the laptops are scanned and tracked and what the general operative is going to be involved in is the making sure that the KNOWHOW drivers that are in the hub at the crack of dawn have a full set of product organised for them with all the necessary paperwork in hand so that they can hit the hub quickly and get out quickly again so that customers get a better level of service than anybody else can give.

I guess I got my first point wrong. You have decided to invest in the expansion of the business. Just not in employees. You've probably invested in a fairly expensive logistics and supply chain management system. Scanners and barcodes? Pre-printed destinations? GPS direction systems for the drivers? Can't get them for free from FAS, guess you'll actually have to spend money on that. And sure even still, I wouldn't trust the kind of moron who takes nine months to learn to scan a barcode and print a delivery docket with designing a inventory and logistics system. So that's fair enough.

The same goes for the customer service advisor and I won't bore you with more detail on this, But suffice to say it's not an easy job, our systems to support customers are complicated and require a lot of learning. And that's before you ever talk to a customer and , let me assure you, you need quite a lot of knowledge before you're ever going to be allowed do that.

Push button, read script? Yeah, I guess you paid the guy who wrote the script, and the vendor who designed the software. In fairness though, at least you're keeping the (non)job in Ireland. I doubt a call centre in India would work for free.

The latter course appealed to our KNOWHOW team and it certainly appeals to me.

Of course it appeals to you and your "KNOWHOW team" you get people to work for free.

It gives people who are long term unemployed the chance to get in with a decent employer

But you're not an employer? You said you can't afford to employ people to do this, that it's currently too much of a risk because it might not even be profitable. You can't call yourself an employer if you're not employing people. Sorry, you're right. You do employ people, the drivers, the management, guys who designed the system, the tech support. You know, the jobs people need to be trained in.

and get themselves used to a job,

What job? You've decided not to hire anyone for this role, they're all work experience people.

trained in a very fast moving and professional environment and systems trained also.

Fast moving? Better give them segways (then you can get someone on a nine month segway placement.)
Professional environment? Professional usually implies you're getting paid for it.
Systems trained? What system? You're system or one that will actually help them get a job? Seeing as you're not hiring anyone for this big risk.

The idea that FAS would let any company, particularly one of our size, use them to displace labour is stretching it a bit. We had to go through a rigorous process to show to FAS that there were no actual vacancies in the business and that these were and are genuine training / work placement positions.

I'll be serious for a moment. Publish the documents you had to provide in this "rigorous process." Let them be examined by us here, the press and the Irish community at large. It's all very well and good you telling us it's a good scheme, but we can twist your words and laugh at the real meaning of what you've been saying. Let's see the proof you gave to that venerable and scrupulous institution that is FAS, and we can see that what you claim is true.