Slave labour jobs available

BASHIR

If Considering useful experience is relative, any ideas on how to stop companies taking the piss with the amount they take on ie not one intern, 9 months later sure lets just get another. Does jobbridge inquire about why an intern did not receive a paid position. If they do surely they can see that the company will be taking the system for granted

starbelgrade

Ace2007 wrote: »

you are talking yourself into a corner, if you pay aout several hundred thousands, paying someone a min wage after a few months instead of waiting for the 9 to be up should be possible.

I'm all in favourite of the scheme if run right, but some of your comments are what lead to people hating the scheme,

you offered him a job when he is finsihed? why not start paying him 3 months ago - you know someone's work ethic after a few months, no need to wait 9.

You obviously don't know what it costs to run a business - just because a company pays large amounts of VAT doesn't necessarily mean that they are hugely profitable - in fact they may even be operating at a loss.

For that reason, it isn't possible for many firms to take on paid employees when they need them.

Luckily for me, my company is doing well, but that doesn't mean that I would take someone on unless I was sure that they could turn over enough work to at least pay their own wages. Having a work ethic is one thing - being able to justify your own wage often takes longer than 9 months.

Slunk

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Maybe. In an ideal world. But they more than likely wouldn't be.

Pretty half hearted reply there. You know its true. You know DSG are exploiting people and so are many others. Starbelgrade has gone a little quiet too. Why not pay his worker now if he feels he is right for the job? Surely paying thousands in tax they can afford minimum wage for the chap. How does they feel he or she is entitled to free labour probably at the cost of someone's hospital bed?

Tiddlypeeps

BASHIR wrote: »

If Considering useful experience is relative, any ideas on how to stop companies taking the piss with the amount they take on ie not one intern, 9 months later sure lets just get another. Does jobbridge inquire about why an intern did not receive a paid position. If they do surely they can see that the company will be taking the system for granted

There is a minimum time before they can take on a new intern for the same position as the intern that recently finished. Can't for the life of me remember how long it is tho, a few months I think. They can always just hire for a different position straight away tho, say the first job was staking shelves the second one could be cashier or something like that.

Doc Ruby

starbelgrade wrote: »

You obviously don't know what it costs to run a business - just because a company pays large amounts of VAT doesn't necessarily mean that they are hugely profitable - in fact they may even be operating at a loss.

And the VAT is coming out of someone else's pocket too, not the company's.

starbelgrade wrote: »

For that reason, it isn't possible for many firms to take on paid employees when they need them.

From the sounds of it you're operating what might be a fairly skilled business. But you cannot possibly justify that Tesco internship crap.

I mean come on.

cloptrop

we should start picketing these frauds
its the same as benefit fraud if you ask me
its taking advantage of the system

Ace2007

starbelgrade wrote: »

You obviously don't know what it costs to run a business - just because a company pays large amounts of VAT doesn't necessarily mean that they are hugely profitable - in fact they may even be operating at a loss.

For that reason, it isn't possible for many firms to take on paid employees when they need them.

Luckily for me, my company is doing well, but that doesn't mean that I would take someone on unless I was sure that they could turn over enough work to at least pay their own wages. Having a work ethic is one thing - being able to justify your own wage often takes longer than 9 months.

No it doesn't, you've already said your going to offer him a job, and his internship isn't over yet and your not currently paying him.

you really are a joke, your saying you could hire someone but choose to see if they can pay their way first, which is not what the scheme is about.

Dudess

I would blame the company, even though it didn't set up the scheme. It has a choice to take advantage of it or not, and I find it completely unethical to do so.

Doctor Jimbob

Slunk wrote: »

Pretty half hearted reply there. You know its true. You know DSG are exploiting people and so are many others. Starbelgrade has gone a little quiet too. Why not pay his worker now if he feels he is right for the job? Surely paying thousands in tax they can afford minimum wage for the chap. How does they feel he or she is entitled to free labour probably at the cost of someone's hospital bed?

Like I've already said, I can see the massive flaws in the whole scheme. I agree with anyone who's saying that. My problem is with the people who are talking about jobs like this as if it's slave labour, as if it's beneath them. I've already pointed this out a few times.

Ace2007

Slunk wrote: »

Pretty half hearted reply there. You know its true. You know DSG are exploiting people and so are many others. Starbelgrade has gone a little quiet too. Why not pay his worker now if he feels he is right for the job? Surely paying thousands in tax they can afford minimum wage for the chap. How does they feel he or she is entitled to free labour probably at the cost of someone's hospital bed?

He has tired himself in a knot, and is trying to say as little as possible now.

starbelgrade

Slunk wrote: »

How does they feel he or she is entitled to free labour probably at the cost of someone's hospital bed?

Oh for fuck sake - that's a ridiculous argument.

Look - I'll put this simply... VAT does not have to be paid on all services regardless. Many companies & sole traders operate small businesses which fall below the VAT rate and don't pay any VAT at all.

If I were to scale down my business, I could do the same thing - but that would mean two things - I would not be in the position to employ any staff at all and I would not be charging & therefore paying any VAT to the Revenue.

The cost to the taxpayer of me taking on a guy through an internship is €50 per week - a total of €1800 over the length of his contract and at the end of it, he'll have a job. That alone will save the taxpayer €250 per week - then add to that his contributions to the taxman via PAYE, the USC and more VAT on the increased money he'll inevitably spend on goods & services from his wages.

If you think that I'm costing the taxpayer money or costing someone a hospital bed, then you are highly mistaken. Nothing but the complete opposite is in fact the truth.

Slunk

Quick edit. You may be an exception star but you can't justify this by dsg.

Well technically your a slave to the employer as they are paying you nothing. That sounds like slavery to me. I can see where your coming from too but its not just a little bit flawed. The whole thing is a shambles. Id say its doing more harm than good. And i know there's a whole other thread on this topic so ill leave it at that. Dsg and anyone else offering there types of position should be punished. No problem gaining valuable experience but this is a joke

Doc Ruby

starbelgrade wrote: »

If you think that I'm costing the taxpayer money or costing someone a hospital bed, then you are highly mistaken. Nothing but the complete opposite is in fact the truth.

You might not be, but you certainly can't defend the likes of the tesco christmas shelf stacker internship.

Doctor Jimbob

Slunk wrote: »

Well technically your a slave to the employer as they are paying you nothing. That sounds like slavery to me. I can see where your coming from too but its not just a little bit flawed. The whole thing is a shambles. Id say its doing more harm than good. And i know there's a whole other thread on this topic so ill leave it at that. Dsg and anyone else offering there types of position should be punished. No problem gaining valuable experience but this is a joke

slave/slāv/
Noun:
A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Going by that definition, it certainly doesn't sound like slavery to me.

cloptrop

do you qualify for the scheme if you have stacked shelves before? im just wondering
there was a time when i was serving my time in fas as a plumber we werent allowed make anything of use because itd be slave labour, the unions would get involved yadda yadda yadda
why isnt this happening now , where are tesco unions on this ,

Doc Ruby

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

slave/slāv/
Noun:
A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Going by that definition, it certainly doesn't sound like slavery to me.

Just wait till IBEC come up with phase two of their genius plan, making the dole dependent on working regardless of whether or not the employer pays them.

And yes, this whole operation is IBEC's brainchild.

Slunk

So how about i refuse to take an internship offered by the social welfare? Ill be cut off. Not exactly slavery but surely its not right. Forcing you to take something for no apparent gain and possibly a loss

starbelgrade

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And the VAT is coming out of someone else's pocket too, not the company's.

I could easily operate with no staff, avoid charging any VAT at all, live comfortably and the only loser would be the exchequer.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

From the sounds of it you're operating what might be a fairly skilled business. But you cannot possibly justify that Tesco internship crap.

I mean come on.

I don't think you can discriminate between what type of jobs can be made available through the scheme, otherwise it provides an unfair advantage to some sectors over others.

The scheme can't just be for professionals or highly skilled workers either as it would discriminate against people who aren't highly skilled and actually want to work in those jobs.

Ace2007 wrote: »

you really are a joke, your saying you could hire someone but choose to see if they can pay their way first, which is not what the scheme is about.

The scheme is about giving people an opportunity to get experience & learn new skills. In my case, that is what is happening so I don't see why you should have any issue with that.

Doctor Jimbob

Slunk wrote: »

So how about i refuse to take an internship offered by the social welfare? Ill be cut off. Not exactly slavery but surely its not right. Forcing you to take something for no apparent gain and possibly a loss

That's a tricky one. There's no way everyone who turns down an internship should be cut off from social welfare, but at the same time if someone repeatedly turns them down, well why should they keep getting the money?

Dempsey

Anyone defending Dixons or this scheme needs their head examined. I rarely shop there but this gives me more motivation to avoid shopping there. Fúck them!

Doc Ruby

starbelgrade wrote: »

The scheme can't just be for professionals or highly skilled workers either as it would discriminate against people who aren't highly skilled and actually want to work in those jobs.

Bollocks. There's no legislation to that effect at any level from the EU down. Doctors and software companies aren't in competition with petrol stations and supermarkets.

Read it again. Christmas shelf stackers.

Sound like there will be a job at the end of that rainbow?

Ace2007

starbelgrade wrote: »

The scheme is about giving people an opportunity to get experience & learn new skills. In my case, that is what is happening so I don't see why you should have any issue with that.

But you could afford to pay him, and you choose not to, why didn't you choose to have him for 6 months - thats an opportunity, why make it 9?

why did you take him on?

Slunk

Maybe an internship should have a cert once completed stating the relevant experience gained. And no bull**** like moving fridges, stacking shelves etc that you can learn in a day. Somethin that could be used and developed further. That you're discourage dsg and tesco etc exploiting the scheme. Although they could come up with fancy wording for the jobs

starbelgrade

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Doctors and software companies aren't in competition with petrol stations and supermarkets.

No, but the assumption that anyone can adapt to working in a petrol station or supermarket & be a valuable asset to the company they work for - without any training or experience, regardless of the skill level - is doing a bit of an injustice to people who do well and are productive in those jobs.

Doc Ruby

starbelgrade wrote: »

No, but the assumption that anyone can adapt to working in a petrol station or supermarket & be a valuable asset to the company they work for - without any training or experience, regardless of the skill level - is doing a bit of an injustice to people who do well and are productive in those jobs.

Give it over. Those are minimum wage jobs for a reason.

You're really not painting yourself in a good light here at all.

What did you say your business was again?

starbelgrade

Ace2007 wrote: »

But you could afford to pay him, and you choose not to, why didn't you choose to have him for 6 months - thats an opportunity, why make it 9?

why did you take him on?

The likelyhood is that he won't actually turn over enough work to pay his own wages for another few months after his contract ends - that's over a year with on the job training and probably another year before he makes any profit for the business at all.

I took him on because the opportunity arose to do so. Without the scheme I wouldn't have done so quite simply because it would have cost me money with no guarantee that I would have got anything back in return at the end of it.

And the simple fact is, that if you want to run a business, you can't be losing money.

Slunk

starbelgrade wrote: »

No, but the assumption that anyone can adapt to working in a petrol station or supermarket & be a valuable asset to the company they work for - without any training or experience, regardless of the skill level - is doing a bit of an injustice to people who do well and are productive in those jobs.

Being honest. How long do you think it takes to train workers in petrol stations or supermarkets? Nothin against those who do, but seriously. Nine months?
Can't wait to see the customer service complaints from Dixons in a while either. Wouldn't say it would be high on my list if it was me working for them at no cost to them.

Doctor Jimbob

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Give it over. Those are minimum wage jobs for a reason.

You're really not painting yourself in a good light here at all.

What did you say your business was again?

You come out with a statement like 'Those are minimum wage jobs for a reason', then claim someone else isn't painting themselves in a good light? Have a look at yourself.

cloptrop

i think a business should at least prove they are using these people in training and not lessening the amount of staff they have
are tesco really finding it so hard to get people with supermarket qualifications?
do they really need to train up a load of social welfare heads, some qualified construction workers or out of school kids
i worked in a supermarket at 15 , straight in there no experience and i was as productive as anybody there within a week ,
this is a total piss take
trained in stock rotation , if you ever shopped for meat before you are trained in stock rotation , come off it , heres the hint there is a sell by date on the label

Doc Ruby

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You come out with a statement like 'Those are minimum wage jobs for a reason', then claim someone else isn't painting themselves in a good light? Have a look at yourself.

Oh I'm sorry, did you take it personally that these are minimum wage low/unskilled labour jobs? They are and that's particularly why they aren't suitable for an internship scheme.

Dempsey

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You come out with a statement like 'Those are minimum wage jobs for a reason', then claim someone else isn't painting themselves in a good light? Have a look at yourself.

They are minimum wage jobs for a reason and I doubt anyone working those jobs are under any illusion about it

starbelgrade

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Give it over. Those are minimum wage jobs for a reason.

You're really not painting yourself in a good light here at all.

There are minimum wage jobs for a reason, just as there are highly paid jobs for a reason. The reason is that less people are capable of working in highly skilled jobs & therefore their services are more in demand and high demand equals high prices.

To me, there is no other reason to discriminate between either type of job other than these basic economic principles, so I don't see how that is painting me in a bad light.

The snobbery being displayed here definitely isn't coming from my end.

Doctor Jimbob

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, did you take it personally that these are minimum wage low/unskilled labour jobs? They are and that's particularly why they aren't suitable for an internship scheme.

I didn't take it personally at all, I just think you have a very condescending attitude towards these jobs and there is no need for it. For people with no work experience, It's at least something to put on a CV isn't it?

Doc Ruby

starbelgrade wrote: »

The reason is that less people are capable of working in highly skilled jobs & therefore their services are more in demand and high demand equals high prices.

Which is where internships come in useful. Of course thats riding right by the logical dead end where you should be paying people in skilled professions the minimum wage regardless.

starbelgrade wrote: »

To me, there is no other reason to discriminate between either type of job other than these basic economic principles, so I don't see how that is painting me in a bad light.

Its discrimination now to have a problem with the taxpayer padding Tesco's profit margins? Its painting you in a bad light because you're going all out to defend this abuse.

Now what did you say your business was again, petrol station or spar shop?

starbelgrade wrote: »

The snobbery being displayed here definitely isn't coming from my end.

There's plenty coming from your end, someone open a window...

fat__tony

starbelgrade wrote: »

A lot of people with professional careers have done internships. It's very common practice.

Yes but most people in normal developed country's actually get some sort of pay/compensation while participating in internships.

Meanwhile back in the basket case of a country that is Ireland, the majority of employers are looking to exploit people at every opportunity. Dixons are a prime example.

Doc Ruby

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I didn't take it personally at all, I just think you have a very condescending attitude towards these jobs and there is no need for it.

Yes, its condescending to want to protect the basics of a minimum wage from abusive corporations like tesco, and ask for a weeks pay for a weeks work.

Some warped logic in this thread.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

For people with no work experience, It's at least something to put on a CV isn't it?

No, its not. Those jobs are not worth shite one for seeking employment in other industries.

cloptrop

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I didn't take it personally at all, I just think you have a very condescending attitude towards these jobs and there is no need for it. For people with no work experience, It's at least something to put on a CV isn't it?

exactly cause these people will need a c v after their internship because they wont be kept on
think about that
thrown back on the scrapheap for the next load of easy money victims to come along
is there a shortage of people looking for jobs in retail??
is there a shortage of people looking for any jobs , find me a job that no one will take
its hilarious , there are no jobs , the government filling these jobs with people on the dole only leads to the same amount of people on the dole and more money for dixons/tescos

yourpics

starbelgrade wrote: »

The likelyhood is that he won't actually turn over enough work to pay his own wages for another few months after his contract ends - that's over a year with on the job training and probably another year before he makes any profit for the business at all.

I took him on because the opportunity arose to do so. Without the scheme I wouldn't have done so quite simply because it would have cost me money with no guarantee that I would have got anything back in return at the end of it.

And the simple fact is, that if you want to run a business, you can't be losing money.

If you employed the right person with a positive outlook who is highly motivated you would easily see a good return.

What type of business are you?

Doctor Jimbob

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Yes, its condescending to want to protect the basics of a minimum wage from abusive corporations like tesco, and ask for a weeks pay for a weeks work.

Some warped logic in this thread.


No, its not. Those jobs are not worth shite one for seeking employment in other industries.

And what about the people who aren't seeking employment in other industries?

cloptrop wrote: »

exactly cause these people will need a c v after their internship because they wont be kept on
think about that
thrown back on the scrapheap for the next load of easy money victims to come along
is there a shortage of people looking for jobs in retail??
is there a shortage of people looking for any jobs , find me a job that no one will take
its hilarious , there are no jobs , the government filling these jobs with people on the dole only leads to the same amount of people on the dole and more money for dixons/tescos

But they still have the experience from this job, I really don't know why you insist on painting this as a bad thing.

starbelgrade

yourpics wrote: »

If you employed the right person with a positive outlook who is highly motivated you would easily see a good return.

If only it were that simple.

yourpics

what line of business are you in?

Doc Ruby

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And what about the people who aren't seeking employment in other industries?

Oh okay, well do us a favour so and share with the rest of us: how is it beneficial to have LOW SKILLED or UNSKILLED workers getting paid out of the taxpayers pocket, when the next job they go to will only be looking for interns of the same skill level anyway?

What flowering careers do you envision coming out of tesco shelf stacking, exactly?

yourpics

to be fair I know people who worked their way up from shelf stacking to store manager. But its most likely Tesco will get a new batch of slaves interns after 6 months

cloptrop

if i was a busy plumber and was on here saying i have ten lads working for me for 50 quid a week , its ok though they get their dole as well , would you be happy with that stablegrade
its the same thing only your method would be legal mine would be illegal
same thing though

partyatmygaff

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But they still have the experience from this job, I really don't know why you insist on painting this as a bad thing.

I'm going to open up a marketing agency next thing tomorrow. We'll specialise in "Human Billboards" for local Dublin businesses.

I'm going to set up a home office and advertise a few internship posts. I'll go find a few businesses willing to avail of my new company's services and i'll assign my budding interns to their posts. It's really a win-win situation, isn't it? I get free labour for my business and my interns get free experience in marketing.

After all, any experience is better than no experience, isn't that right Doctor Jimbob?

Doctor Jimbob

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh okay, well do us a favour so and share with the rest of us: how is it beneficial to have LOW SKILLED or UNSKILLED workers getting paid out of the taxpayers pocket, when the next job they go to will only be looking for interns of the same skill level anyway?

What flowering careers do you envision coming out of tesco shelf stacking, exactly?

Some people have to work at the bottom too. Just because it's beneath you doesn't mean it's beneath other people. Not everything has to be beneficial to you. It's beneficial to society. Just because you don't get any benefit from it doesn't make it a bad thing.

Not everyone has to have a flowering career. If everyone makes their way to the top of the career ladder, there's no one left to support the bottom, so the whole thing falls apart.

Doctor Jimbob

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm going to open up a marketing agency next thing tomorrow. We'll specialise in "Human Billboards" for local Dublin businesses.

I'm going to set up a home office and advertise a few internship posts. I'll go find a few businesses willing to avail of my new company's services and i'll assign my budding interns to their posts. It's really a win-win situation, isn't it? I get free labour for my business and my interns get free experience in marketing.

After all, any experience is better than no experience, isn't that right Doctor Jimbob?

Yes, any experience is better than no experience. Do you have any comment to make that isn't smart assed thanks whoring? Or are we done now?

yourpics

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Some people have to work at the bottom too. Just because it's beneath you doesn't mean it's beneath other people. Not everything has to be beneficial to you. It's beneficial to society. Just because you don't get any benefit from it doesn't make it a bad thing.

Not everyone has to have a flowering career. If everyone makes their way to the top of the career ladder, there's no one left to support the bottom, so the whole thing falls apart.

Yes there are people at the bottom of the ladder but surely they are entitled to a proper wage

Doc Ruby

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Some people have to work at the bottom too.

Thats right. And workers get paid. Thats why they work.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's beneficial to society.

For the fiftieth time, how is padding tesco's profit margins beneficial to society? What skills do you imagine shelf stackers will pick up that they couldn't pick up in a week anyway?

And I used to work as a shelf stacker in Dunnes, so spare us the blue collar brotherhood crap.

starbelgrade

cloptrop wrote: »

if i was a busy plumber and was on here saying i have ten lads working for me for 50 quid a week , its ok though they get their dole as well , would you be happy with that stablegrade
its the same thing only your method would be legal mine would be illegal
same thing though

It's not the same thing. In order for you meet the criteria to take on ten interns, you would have to have a company that already employs at least 40 people.

A company of that size would be contributing a significant amount of tax revenue while a guy paying people to work for cash would not.

The legality of it is far from the only difference.