How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing


8:30 am - February 16th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

There was a lot of outrage on Twitter last night over this ad on the Job Centre Plus website. The ad, for a Tesco Night Shift Worker, is a permanent job based in East Anglia.

How much did they pay? ‘Job Seekers Allowance + expenses’ – that’s it. You work and yet you don’t get paid for a full time job. No wonder people were angry.

Ahh, but there is a catch, some say.

The job was posted as part of the government’s Sector Based Work Academies (SBWA) programme – which offers training and a guaranteed job interview.

Chris Grayling introduced this last year as part of a “strategy to combat youth unemployment” – though it seems to have had minimal impact on reducing youth unemployment so far.

Also quoted in that DWP press release – Judith Nelson, UK Personnel Director for Tesco.

What’s wrong with that, some right-wingers may argue. But why should Tesco be allowed to employ people without pay at all? If it has places to fill, why shouldn’t it go through the normal channels of recruiting workers and paying them a proper wage.

Conservatives believe that financial incentives have an impact, right? Where is the incentive for anyone to work for Tesco 8 hours a day just to get paid expenses?

The Guardian today reveals that over 24 thousand jobseekers were told to work like this withotu pay or lose benefits, under a Mandatory Work Activity programme.

The government can’t create jobs nor cut the minimum wage, so it’s trying to cut welfare bill by forcing people to work for free. This is nothing less than modern slavery. And Tesco should be ashamed of itself for exploiting workers like this.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I don’t like these forced work for nothing schemes either, but this line of argument “If it has places to fill, why shouldn’t it go through the normal channels of recruiting workers and paying them a proper wage.” needs some nuance because as it stands it rules out any sort of youth employment scheme and also ignores possibility that these schemes may create “places to fill” that would otherwise not exist.

How would a left winger design a youth employment scheme?

Is the JSA they get still coming from the taxpayer? Are my taxes subsidising Tesco now?

I guess the point is the difference in what jobs are for. Keeping poor people busy and making profit for Tesco is the point, presumably. It doesn’t matter if that person can actually live on what they earn – and now it seems, if they are still on JSA – the myth about protecting the taxpayer and saving public money is also a load of BS.

I know I know, who’d have thought it…

Disgusting

As your article so rightly says this just SLAVERY, part of the employment problems are due to the fact employers will only employ people for a sweetener such as NI holiday and now this – t’s disgusting but sadly only what you can expect from the Tory Nasty party

Luis – I don’t know about “a left winger” but perhaps:

– give smaller companies a tax cut in exchange for creating paid jobs and increasing the lowest wages? (They would like this, presumably, as they’d prefer to not need subsidy and not pay tax, right?) Anyone wanting to hire who can’t afford it could apply for a govt tax credit to create x number of jobs in areas that need them. (I don’t consider this left wing at all to be honest.)

– create government jobs, as long as they are actually constructive jobs which need doing then this isn’t so much of a problem. Using taxpayers money to hand people a wage instead of JSA is a bit of a figures fumble otherwise, but then, I have no problem with people receiving JSA when they need it.

– investing in projects like building new schools, instead of cutting these projects. Construction for example is tumbling because of public sector cuts, this is a great industry to create proper jobs.

– not give foreign contracts for manufacturing etc when things can be made or built here, in this country. Not sure I always agree with this as I’m internationalist and not that keen on protectionism but it does answer the question of something a “left winger” would do, and it’s definitely preferable to the above scheme.

Consider the promising career prospects on taking one of these jobs – full-time night work at Tescos filling shelves with a staff discount on Tesco purchases thrown in. Btw what are Sainsbury and Asda offering?

As for Morrisons:

“Morrisons, Britain’s 4th largest food retailer, today announces it will train more than 12,000 apprentices in 2011 making the company the largest provider of apprenticeships in the UK.”
http://www.morrisons.co.uk/corporate/Media-centre/Corporate-news/Morrisons-become-largest-provider-of-apprenticeships-in-the-UK/

With a millstone like that, no wonder Morrisons is only the fourth largest food retailer instead of the largest, like Tesco.

This isn’t a bad way of creating jobs. This is going to kill jobs; why create a paid position if you can get someone to do it for free? This is the opposite of job creation.

8. Chaise Guevara

I love the idea of a “guaranteed job interview”. Not a guaranteed job, you understand. But a job interview of your very own!

Mandatory unpaid work.

Lets remember that the next time some right-winger starts prattling on about their principled commitment to individual liberty.

An important reminder that Thatcherism is a deeply authoritarian ideology. It “frees” you from the democratic public sphere so as to make you a subject of the undemocratic corporate sphere.

As capitalism reaches an unchallenged hegemony, it can finally dispense with the pretense that it walks hand in hand with freedom and democracy.

Freedom and democracy thrived under the hegemony of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, didn’t it?

12. Chaise Guevara

@ 11 Bob B

“Freedom and democracy thrived under the hegemony of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, didn’t it?”

False dichotomy.

“This is nothing less than modern slavery.”

Hardly. People are at liberty to stop claiming job-seekers allowance. This is just introducing an element of conditionality into the welfare state: “Something for something”, as EdM said a while back.

I am not so happy if Tesco is subsidised however. They should pay the benefit if they gain from the work.

‘And Tesco should be ashamed of itself…’

First laugh of the day, thanks Sunny.

I quite fancy spending my days lying on a chaise longue in a toga, while beautiful people deferentially drop grapes into my mouth. The only trouble is that I can’t afford to employ a team of semi-naked grape-feeders.

Tell you what, I’ll take on some apprentices, funded by the taxpayer.

Not only will I get to enjoy my life of luxury, but I’ll also enjoy the warm glow of satisfaction that comes from providing exciting new opportunities to the unemployed.

16. Graham Tucker

“There was a lot of outrage on Twitter last night over this ad on the Job Centre Plus website”

You really should get the facts correct.

The “job” is NOT advertised on the JobCentrePlus website. The domain you go to in the link is actually a sub domain of jobcentreplus.co.uk which is registered to some one in Uxbridge.

The job number quoted does not exist when one searches the direct.gov jobseekers search engine.

There is reference in the article to SWBA which does encourage people to do some voluntary work and my understanding is that Tesco do play a part in this, however to suggest it is a job adverstised on the JobCentrePlus website is mesleading and irresponsible.

Please make the facts clear before you circualte this on Twitter or any other medium.

Fucking typical Tory vermin. Labour camps for the blood sucking parasites at Tesco.

The Tories love this ‘austerity drive’ because they are finally putting into place their true beliefs into practice.

Create millions of unemployed and then use them to support your billionaire friends. Strutting little Nazis.

I had the misfortune to hear Edwina Currie on five Live this morning. The one thing we need is a screaming, hectoring Tory lording over some unfortunate victim of Tory policy. She managed to reduce a human to tears by prying into whether the woman had a dog or used a catalogue. This evil little woman was determined that her victim should lay her entire life open for Currie’s approval. Yeah, like she didn’t mind her life being dragged open for everyone else’s approval.

The only thing worse than this is the Labour Party’s silence.

i have had three jobs that are upaid, one was over xmas and the store i worked in has no interest in give me a job or a job interview, i already do a volunteer job that i found myself but the jobcentre plus say i have to work a 5 day 40 hours a week for £60 when a friend that work 20 hours a week is getting over £80 a week. people how say this is fair should try it.

If you are an MP, +expenses is equal to approx £24,000 per annum isn’t it?
I trust Tesco will have a similar scheme?

Graham Tucker @ 16

What are you on? Are you employed by Tesco, because when I click on the link, it CLEARLY goes onto the Direct Gov wbsite. For some reason you feel the need to lie about the despicable practice of employing slave Labour by one of this Country’s greediest parsites.

What are you getting from it?

Surely, it’s not too cynical to suggest that where government policy is concerned – ‘Who pays the Piper calls the tune?
Big business and the City fund the Tories and buy the policies that best serve their needs. There is ample evidence of this.
When the public mood supports policy that doesn’t serve the interests of the City, the Right mobilises to oppose it.
Paid holidays, sick leave, working hours, pensions, health care, child employment etc., etc.
Did the Right support the abolition of slavery or the introduction of the ‘Load Line’ on ‘Coffin Ships’? Where were the caring Tories when children as young as three worked in the mines and mills?
Where did Mrs Thatcher stand on apartheid in South Africa, when the world stood against it?
Presumably she dispatched her champion Alan Duncan M.P. to deliver the coup de grace?
Why would anybody be surprised that the Tories would wish to re-introduce slavery and dress it up as a ‘job opportunity’?
It’s in their genes, it’s like foxes kill chickens, it’s what they do

22. So Much For Subtlety

Conservatives believe that financial incentives have an impact, right? Where is the incentive for anyone to work for Tesco 8 hours a day just to get paid expenses?

Because it is in their long term interests? Because working at Tesco looks better on your CV than sitting on your arse in front of the TV smoking weed? Because it teaches skills and discipline necessary for getting better jobs? Because it is a start on a real career path?

The Guardian today reveals that over 24 thousand jobseekers were told to work like this withotu pay or lose benefits, under a Mandatory Work Activity programme.

The scandal is that all of them are not told to do so. Working is better than not working. Even for no more than the JSA. It ought to be the only form of benefits.

The government can’t create jobs nor cut the minimum wage, so it’s trying to cut welfare bill by forcing people to work for free. This is nothing less than modern slavery. And Tesco should be ashamed of itself for exploiting workers like this.

How is it slavery? People are still free to quit, to change jobs, to refuse. This is just hysterical non-thinking.

Shoppers are free not to shop at Tesco to indicate their disgust – but Tesco has a 30pc share of the market and in places there isn’t much choice of alternatives.

I stopped shopping at Tescos a couple of years ago because I was getting involved in weekly rows with customer services over the differences between shelf prices and what I was being charged at the checkouts. I now shop at Morrisons.

24. So Much For Subtlety

9. David Wearing

Mandatory unpaid work.

It is not mandatory and it is not unpaid. You don’t want to do it, you don’t do it. You can go get a job or start a business or stay at home living on the earnings of immoral young ladies. Whatever you like. And if you take part, you will get the JSA plus expenses. You know, money.

An important reminder that Thatcherism is a deeply authoritarian ideology. It “frees” you from the democratic public sphere so as to make you a subject of the undemocratic corporate sphere.

Thatcherism was deeply authoritarian in many respects, but not this one. The State is a monopoly. The market is not. The more government we have, the less free everyone else is.

Cylux

As capitalism reaches an unchallenged hegemony, it can finally dispense with the pretense that it walks hand in hand with freedom and democracy.

Dare to dream!

Chaise Guevara

False dichotomy.

No it isn’t. When some Trot spouts off about the market, drawing attention to the state their heroes created is a reasonable response.

Larry

I quite fancy spending my days lying on a chaise longue in a toga, while beautiful people deferentially drop grapes into my mouth. The only trouble is that I can’t afford to employ a team of semi-naked grape-feeders. Tell you what, I’ll take on some apprentices, funded by the taxpayer.

Not a bad idea. It would be better for them than staying at home smoking weed in front of the TV. Might teach some useful skills. Like waking up before 12. It would certainly encourage them to get on and move up the labour market into a better job.

If we care about the unemployed – and I don’t think anyone here does really – then we want them in work. Any work. Not rotting at home on the dole.

We should end all forms of welfare that do not involve some sort of quid pro quo. There ought to be something given back to the community. 40 hours of work a week is a perfectly reasonable return to the rest of us. And better for them too.

“Any work. Not rotting at home on the dole.”

It took a civil war in America to abolish the institution of slavery there. Why did they bother? The slaves should have been grateful for the opportunity to work.

26. Chaise Guevara

@ 22 SMFS

“Because it is in their long term interests? Because working at Tesco looks better on your CV than sitting on your arse in front of the TV smoking weed? Because it teaches skills and discipline necessary for getting better jobs? Because it is a start on a real career path?”

I’m not sure that working for free for a year, then getting your very own job interview and being turned down in favour of a new free employee is a “real career path”.

Your other points here are valid enough. So let’s give people jobs with appropriate pay, whether that means working 12 hours to get JSA or working 40 hours to get £200. Let’s give them reasonable job security. Finally, seeing as we’re paying these people’s wages, let’s get them helping us out (cleaning, manning council phone lines, assisting charities) rather than handing their labour over to private companies for free.

27. Craig Melson

“The scandal is that all of them are not told to do so. Working is better than not working.”

Then why don’t you go and do some work, rather than spending every minute of every working day leaving your idiotic comments on blogs?

“The government can’t create jobs nor cut the minimum wage, so it’s trying to cut welfare bill by forcing people to work for free. This is nothing less than modern slavery. And Tesco should be ashamed of itself for exploiting workers like this.”

This is actually the end result of a *Labour* proposal folks. Here’s Richard Layard on “Welfare to Work” and the “New Deal” from Jan 2001. Do recall that Layard is a *Labour* peer now.

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/occasional/OP015.pdf

“Thus the big new idea in Labour’s New Deal is this. We ought to offer everybody
on the threshold of long-term unemployment a choice of activity for at least a period.
And when that happens we should remove the option of life on benefit.”

“These ideas make one focus on the intense need which many unemployed people have for
active help to overcome the barriers to employment. The main kinds of “active labour market
policies” that can be used are these:
• Job-search assistance, advice and matching to the available vacancies. Good
controlled experiments in Sweden show how unemployment has been reduced in
areas where the job centres have more staff.
• Training. This has a mixed record but the right education and training can clearly
set a person on a new path in life.
• Employment subsidies. These can induce employers to give a chance to hard-toplace
workers and thus expand the size of the effective workforce. A good
example is the Jobstart programme in Australia.
• Work experience. Where no job can be found with a regular employer, work on
publicly-useful projects can help improve people’s work habits and give them
work records which help in finding regular jobs.”

And so your problem with all of this is?

30. Chaise Guevara

@ 24 SMFS

“No it isn’t. When some Trot spouts off about the market, drawing attention to the state their heroes created is a reasonable response.”

Yes it is. On account of how Cylux very notably didn’t finish his post with a cheery “USSR FTW!” Cylux isn’t “some Trot” who worships Stalin, last time I checked.

You and Bob might be unable to imagine any system other that Sovietesque communism or no-holds-barred capitalism, but the rest of us get the concept of nuance.

You’re welcome.

Jim,

What are you on? Are you employed by Tesco, because when I click on the link, it CLEARLY goes onto the Direct Gov wbsite.

No, it’s a site masquerading as the Direct Gov jobs website.

“And so your problem with all of this is?”

Why should any retailing employer offer apprenticeships if they can get workers off the dole on the same terms that Tesco does for unskilled jobs in retailing?

Jim @ 20.
The URL states that the source is jobcentreplus . jobhits . co. uk.
It is not the JobCentrePlus website.

If you click on the link you will notice that there is a message overlay at the base which reads:-
“This adjunct is made by JobHits Job Search Engine. We have done our best to fetch the Jobseekers Direct page that you have asked for. We would add that we are not responsible for the content and that this page has been retrieved from cache. It is about 8 hours old.”

No Such Job.
A search on the jobseekers . direct. gov. uk website for job ref BSD/27442 reveals that there is no vacancy with that code.
“Sorry, job number bsd/27442 has not been found. It may be mis-typed or no longer available. Please check the number and try again.”

“And so your problem with all of this is?”

That Layard piece was published in 2001. Here’s some research, specifically about workfare, published in 2008, which (unlike the article which you cited) deals directly with workfare – http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf

Amongst the findings:

– There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding
work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available
for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by
employers.
– Subsidised (‘transitional’) job schemes that pay a wage can be more
effective in raising employment levels than ‘work for benefit’ programmes.
– Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour
markets where unemployment is high.
– Levels of non-participation in mandatory activities are high in some
workfare programmes.
– Workfare is least effective for individuals with multiple barriers to
work.
– Welfare recipients with multiple barriers often find it difficult to meet
obligations to take part in unpaid work. This can lead to sanctions and,
in the most extreme cases, the complete withdrawal of benefits that leaves
some individuals with no work and no income.

Apart from the fact that workfare can reduce employment chances, is least effective given the current state of the economy, least effective for individuals with multiple barriers, and leaves people with no work and no income, it is also less effective than programmes which the government scrapped when it came into power.

35. Graham Tucker

Jim

You really should get your facts right, as some one else has said it is a site pretending to be the direct.gov website. For what reason I don’t know I am sure that many will have their conspiracy theories.

The writer of the article should publish a correction he is tweeting and re tweeting misleading crap and people like you have fallen for it.

What are you on dude????

Its a good idea,i am unemployed and have been for a while and this would be a good step for me to get back in to work.They could make it more appealing for some if they gave an incentive payment.

They’re trying to get freeloaders off their asses and in to work. Currently, freeloading sons of b*****s can earn my wage a week, and I get paid well let me tell you, sitting on their asses at home. And the gov can’t catch them out. It’s bleeding enormous resources that could be better spent. I say cut all of them off. No aympathy for freeloaders. And before anyone tries to ask me how I’d feel if i was cut off, I was cut off. I’ve NEVER ONCE received a cent in benefit because there were no jobs and was told there’s no way I couldn’t find work. While the queue of dirty freeloading mongrels behind me were picking up their cheques. Most of them foreign nationals milking the system. But I got a job 9 months later and was back on my feet. Meanwhile people like you complain about exploiting the leeches that don’t bother to work? This article is a pile of assleak.

@37 – You spent 9 months without any money? Where did you live and what did you eat.

And after all that you get a job paying you £70 a week!

Your the freeloader pal, what gives you the right to go to work and earn a pittance while the rest of us prop up the economy for you. Perhaps if you were not such an underachieving failure you’d be less bitter about your lot in life. Get some more skills and get a better job because at present your a waste who doesn’t contribute, and for that reason you should be skinned alive

39. Chaise Guevara

@ 37 E Murray

“This article is a pile of assleak.”

I think you’ve made an error here. Y’see, it’s not that the article is a pile of assleak. It’s that you’re a monstrously ignorant, over-privileged cunt. Hope that clears thing up for you.

40. Chaise Guevara

@ 38 Dave

“And after all that you get a job paying you £70 a week! ”

Zing!

Graham Tucker

You really should get your facts right, as some one else has said it is a site pretending to be the direct.gov website. For what reason I don’t know I am sure that many will have their conspiracy theories.

Money through advertising I expect; there are two advert areas on the page.

Regardless of the existence of the job in the first place, Sunny and all the people who just click retweet have done the owner of the misleading website a great favour.

kevin,

Its a good idea,i am unemployed and have been for a while and this would be a good step for me to get back in to work.They could make it more appealing for some if they gave an incentive payment.

Here is a list of all ‘supermarket assistant’ type jobs in Britain from the real JobSeekers DirectGov website:

http://jobseekers.direct.gov.uk/listjob.aspx?sessionid=a28123f4-21e3-427f-ac19-648324eecb23&pid=3&sid=345365980&p=1&so=1

@24 Care to point to where I even mentioned the market in my comment Mr Subtlety?

It does not really matter how they try to spin this up, Tesco are advertising for a slave workforce. Not content with hollowing out our high streets they want their Tory mates to deliberately fuck up the economy and these dirty parasites will reap the rewards.

So where is the incentive for the Government to get the economy on track? Where is the incentive for Tesco to employ more staff?

Cameron and the rest of the vermin told us that the ‘private sector’ would soak up public sector job losses. Well here we are, with that plan. Take unemployed people and force them to work without wages! One of the most profitable businesses in the Country are looking for workers, yes, fine, but why are be getting away with this? So not make everybody on low wages unemployed and force them into slavery?

Surely every low paid employee is under threat via this nasty little scheme?

44. So Much For Subtlety

21. Barrie J

Big business and the City fund the Tories and buy the policies that best serve their needs. There is ample evidence of this.

What evidence? It is utterly bizarre to think the pile of shite we have as policies are in anyone’s interest much less than anyone would pay for them. Muddle and compromise is the only explanation.

When the public mood supports policy that doesn’t serve the interests of the City, the Right mobilises to oppose it. Paid holidays, sick leave, working hours, pensions, health care, child employment etc., etc.

Then they are doing a p!ss poor job given we have all of those.

Did the Right support the abolition of slavery or the introduction of the ‘Load Line’ on ‘Coffin Ships’?

Umm, yes and yes. William Wilberforce was a Tory and the Maritime Shipping Act that made the Plimsol Line compulsory and ended the problem of coffin ships was passed under Disreali, a Tory PM.

Where were the caring Tories when children as young as three worked in the mines and mills?

Passing laws to prevent their abuse. Richard Oastler was a Tory and lead the campaign against child labour. As was Lord Shaftesbury.

Where did Mrs Thatcher stand on apartheid in South Africa, when the world stood against it?

She stood against another Stalinist Communist Party winning power through terrorism. Rightly so too.

45. Chaise Guevara

@ Jim

“Surely every low paid employee is under threat via this nasty little scheme?”

Yup. They’ve managed to make a jobs scheme that kills jobs. Evidently you’d have to get up very early indeed to outstupid David Cameron.

46. So Much For Subtlety

25. Bob B

It took a civil war in America to abolish the institution of slavery there. Why did they bother? The slaves should have been grateful for the opportunity to work.

That is the sort of smart arse comment that sounds superficially clever that makes these threads so tiresome. You ought to be ashamed. No one is being threatened with slavery.

Chaise Guevara

I’m not sure that working for free for a year, then getting your very own job interview and being turned down in favour of a new free employee is a “real career path”.

I did not say it was. But it sure beats sitting on your arse for a year smoking weed in front of the TV. Try that on your resume and see where it gets you.

Your other points here are valid enough. So let’s give people jobs with appropriate pay, whether that means working 12 hours to get JSA or working 40 hours to get £200.

We need to give them as much as it takes to get them all in work – but no more. We don’t actually want them better off than people who choose work. But a sensible level should be found. Better yet, we should simply stop offering welfare without work. Tax credits for everyone but the dole for no one.

Let’s give them reasonable job security.

No, that is not what we want. Make sure they have a job to go to, but if they screw up, if they refuse to work, if they f**k around, they need to be fired.

Finally, seeing as we’re paying these people’s wages, let’s get them helping us out (cleaning, manning council phone lines, assisting charities) rather than handing their labour over to private companies for free.

Australia tried this with Aboriginal communities. They had work for the dole schemes. Well intentioned. Started out well. But they allowed people to work for their local authorities. Who were soon paying them to produce art works no one wanted, and then perform traditional song and dance, and in the end, for doing nothing whatsoever. The government has no spine. They will simply expand the definition of “work” until it is no different from sitting on the dole. We need people to work for people who know what work is.

Chaise Guevara

Yes it is. On account of how Cylux very notably didn’t finish his post with a cheery “USSR FTW!” Cylux isn’t “some Trot” who worships Stalin, last time I checked.

And yet his other language was entirely Stalinist. Perhaps a little down the Eurocommunism end, but still within the Stalinist spectrum. When was the last time you checked?

You and Bob might be unable to imagine any system other that Sovietesque communism or no-holds-barred capitalism, but the rest of us get the concept of nuance.

Not that anyone reading your posts would notice.

Bob B

Why should any retailing employer offer apprenticeships if they can get workers off the dole on the same terms that Tesco does for unskilled jobs in retailing?

Well they are not likely to be as good as people who want apprenticeships for one thing. But so what if they do take workers off the dole? Every company has dozens of things that need to be done that could be done if workers were cheaper. Peeling grapes perhaps. So if their wages are lower, they will employ more. The economy will grow and the demand for labour will pick up until every single person has a job. Then wages will rise. People will be promoted to real jobs that pay real wages. Problem solved.

Jim

It does not really matter how they try to spin this up, Tesco are advertising for a slave workforce.

No they did not. Stop lying. This is entirely voluntary. Unlike, ironically, apprenticeships. Which historical have been a type of forced, more or less unpaid labour.

Where is the incentive for Tesco to employ more staff?

It costs them nothing, or at least little. Why the hell wouldn’t they employ more?

Perhaps I have misunderstood this, but if Tesco are prepared to pay people the equivalent of JSA, plus their expenses, surely this is a win/win for everyone. The taxpayer saves, Tesco get to train and presumably interview personnel for future advancement and the Job Seeker gains from getting a “work ethic”. The fact that it gets them into a work environment, socialising outside of the gang, and “earning” their living seems worthwhile. The alternative, do nothing and wait until somebody does something for you, seems the greater of two evils.

48. Chaise Guevara

@ 46 SMFS

“I did not say it was. But it sure beats sitting on your arse for a year smoking weed in front of the TV. Try that on your resume and see where it gets you.”

Sure, agreed.

“We need to give them as much as it takes to get them all in work – but no more. We don’t actually want them better off than people who choose work. But a sensible level should be found.”

A sensible level has already been agreed – the minimum wage. We should be using it here. If you think it’s too high then fair enough, but that’s a broader issue. The amount of money needed for an acceptable quality of life doesn’t change just because you’re doing state-paid busywork.

“Better yet, we should simply stop offering welfare without work. Tax credits for everyone but the dole for no one.”

Can I assume this doesn’t include the severely disabled?

“No, that is not what we want. Make sure they have a job to go to, but if they screw up, if they refuse to work, if they f**k around, they need to be fired.”

Um, yes. Which is why I said “reasonable job security” not “bulletproof job security”. If you’re going to disagree with me, don’t pretend I said something other than what I actually said. It’s a well-known fallacy, you may have heard of it? Rhymes with “floor pan”.

“Australia tried this with Aboriginal communities. They had work for the dole schemes. Well intentioned. Started out well. But they allowed people to work for their local authorities. Who were soon paying them to produce art works no one wanted, and then perform traditional song and dance, and in the end, for doing nothing whatsoever. ”

The fact that one scheme was badly managed does not mean that all related schemes are doomed to failure.

“The government has no spine. They will simply expand the definition of “work” until it is no different from sitting on the dole. We need people to work for people who know what work is.”

Conjecture.

“And yet his other language was entirely Stalinist. Perhaps a little down the Eurocommunism end, but still within the Stalinist spectrum.”

I love how you go out of your way to prove me right – your definition of “Stalinist” is “anything other than laissez-faire capitalism”. Well, by that stupid definition, he’s a Stalinist. If we stick with the English language, he isn’t.

“When was the last time you checked?”

Oh, grow up.

“Not that anyone reading your posts would notice.”

Well, you certainly wouldn’t, what with you not getting the concept of nuance.

This is disgusting. Whatever happened to an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work? If there’s a vacancy, it should be filled by a regular worker. This kind of scheme harms the job market.

Oh dear. It looks as if I have to shout.
THE LINK DOES NOT DIRECT YOU TO A DIRECTGOV WEBPAGE.
IT MAY LOOK LIKE A DIRECTGOV WEBPAGE BUT, IT ISN’T.
THERE IS NO SUCH VACANCY ON THE JOBCENTREPLUS WEBSITE.

See my post above (23).

51. Chaise Guevara

@ 47 Brad

“Perhaps I have misunderstood this, but if Tesco are prepared to pay people the equivalent of JSA, plus their expenses, surely this is a win/win for everyone.”

As I understand it, Tesco doesn’t pay the equivalent of JSA – people get JSA from the government while working for free at a company.

Either way, I doubt you’d describe working full time for £60-odd a week a “win”, unless earning £1.35 per hour is your idea of a fair wage. But you’d have no choice – why would companies offer you a job for £6 an hour when they can just get you to do the same job for free?

It’s an incredibly stupid idea.

“Perhaps I have misunderstood this, but if Tesco are prepared to pay people the equivalent of JSA, plus their expenses, surely this is a win/win for everyone.”

Research published by the government found that this sort of scheme found that “there is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding
work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available
for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by
employers.”

So a lose/lose for jobseekers and the government, though quite handy for Tesco’s who can cut their wage bill with help from the taxpayer.

Ceilog,

Oh dear. It looks as if I have to shout.
THE LINK DOES NOT DIRECT YOU TO A DIRECTGOV WEBPAGE.
IT MAY LOOK LIKE A DIRECTGOV WEBPAGE BUT, IT ISN’T.
THERE IS NO SUCH VACANCY ON THE JOBCENTREPLUS WEBSITE.

See my post above (23).

461 outraged twits and climbing.

54. Chaise Guevara

@ Ceiliog and UKliberty

Um, the linked Guardian article says that the government can make you work in high-street shops for free to keep your JSA. In fact, this was widely reported about a year ago.

Why you two apparently think that we should all stop caring about the issue just because one unimportant example turned out to be unreliable is beyond me. And seems odd coming from you, UKliberty.

Brad @ 47

Perhaps I have misunderstood this, but if Tesco are prepared to pay people the equivalent of JSA, plus their expenses, surely this is a win/win for everyone.

Yes you have misunderstood it. Tescos are not paying these people to work for Tesco. YOU are. The taxpayers are paying unemployment benefit and travel expenses, so that TESCO can get their shelves stacked without having to dip into their profits. Tesco have seen a 5% drop in profits and need to make the money up somehow. They will now pass the cost of getting their shop stocked onto you, the taxpayer.

Tesco get to train and presumably interview personnel

A function that Tesco and everyone else has to do anyway, without taxpayer subsidy.

The fact that it gets them into a work environment

It is not a work environment, people get paid to work. Whatever JSA is it is not wages.

No they did not. Stop lying. This is entirely voluntary.

No one will be suprised that the resident strutting Nazi will approve of this scheme and has been forced to openly lie about it.

UKL @ 53

Are Tesco attempting to drive people onto this scheme or not? Do Tesco use unpaid labour, provided via a Tory scheme, to bolster their profits? A simple yes or no will suffice.

My guess is that the reports regarding this scheme and Tesco’s exploitation of British people within it are accurate.

Jim,

Are Tesco attempting to drive people onto this scheme or not?

Tesco? I thought it was the DWP.

Do Tesco use unpaid labour, provided via a Tory scheme, to bolster their profits? A simple yes or no will suffice.

My guess is that the reports regarding this scheme and Tesco’s exploitation of British people within it are accurate.

AFAICS no-one disputes Tesco’s involvement in the scheme.

Chaise,

Why you two apparently think that we should all stop caring about the issue just because one unimportant example turned out to be unreliable is beyond me. And seems odd coming from you, UKliberty.

I’d like people to stop retweeting the link to a site masquerading as the DirectGov site so that the owner of that site doesn’t make more money out of his deception.

60. Chaise Guevara

@ 59 ukliberty

“I’d like people to stop retweeting the link to a site masquerading as the DirectGov site so that the owner of that site doesn’t make more money out of his deception.”

Fair enough. You seemed to be backing Ceilong, who as far as I can tell thinks we’re morons for discussing the matter.

UKL @ 58

AFAICS no-one disputes Tesco’s involvement in the scheme.

In other words, this is a Government scheme, and you can an advert for it on a Government website, perhaps via a third Party site and people are suggesting the reports are not accurate?

I cannot see the difference, myself.

We all can see what is going on. The Tories have fucked up the economy and millions are on the dole. The ‘best’ way to get them off the dole is to use this extra workforce as free labour (free to the millionaire tax avioders), thus chocking off the very jobs that the Tories said would be produced by the free market?

Oh,Tescos rake in profits based on this mandatory scheme.

Nice. That means that the Government can now run millions of people into poverty and the parasites like Tesco get to exploit them.

@54 and 59. Chaise Guevara
For heaven’s sake. The point that I am making is that the Tesco example is dodgy to say the least.
I’m sure that you have, like me, visited websites and blogs that highlight newspaper articles, based on reports from unreliable sources, that turn out to be false.
Serious blogs and websites should, whenever possible, do validity checks before publishing.

My view is that the way the Government treat young people, old people, middle-aged people and people (apart from filthy rich and idle plutocrats) is a disgrace.

63. Chaise Guevara

@ 62

“The point that I am making is that the Tesco example is dodgy to say the least.”

That I agree with.

If it was a real vacancy in East Anglia, why does the ref code have a BSD (Basildon, Essex) origin?
There are JobCentrePlus offices in East Anglia e.g. Peterborough (PCH code).

why the fuss? Tesco exists to make money so of course does all it can to reduce its biggest cost, its labour bill.It is about profit , morality is not its concern. Of course this is wrong but the issue is not with Tesco as such but more with a state/society that has made/tolerates slavery as part of its employment strategy.

66. Chaise Guevara

@ 65

“why the fuss? Tesco exists to make money so of course does all it can to reduce its biggest cost, its labour bill.It is about profit , morality is not its concern. Of course this is wrong but the issue is not with Tesco as such but more with a state/society that has made/tolerates slavery as part of its employment strategy.”

That would be the reason for the fuss.

So Much for Subtlety at 44

Oooh there’s nothing quite like a Tory Troll with his back up is there?

Would you have us believe that coincidence is the only connection between Tory Party donations from private health care providers and the so called ‘reforms’ to the NHS?
Or are the donations a simple act of charity?
Even the ‘fat bloke’ down the pub can ‘follow the money’.

William Wilberforce the ‘Tory M.P’. surely he was a Liberal but he can be a Tory if it suits your argument better.

Perhaps you can tell us what action by Disraeli the Tory P.M. caused Samuel Plimsoll to be suspended from Parliament – whoops it must have been Benj’s enthusiasiastic embrace of Plimsoll’s Bill – oh no. it wasn’t, he threw it out.

Lord Shaftesbury – I take my hat off to him, as a social reformer today he would be hard pressed to get selected for a safe Labour seat.
Presumably the entire Tory Party got right behind him?
Exactly how many years was it between the Royal Commission reporting and a workable Act?
Richard Oastler – now there was a hero for the modern Tory Party, the man they called The Factory King and the leader of The Ten Hour Movement, never a politician but a rousing public speaker. By 1836 he was calling for workers to strike and commit acts of sabotage.
Sadly, it was not a theme that accorded with his employer – who promptly sacked him and had him committed to Debtor’s Prison for non payment of loans – truly a Tory to the last.
Perhaps you can name a current Tory M.P./ supporter/ donor who would encourage workers to strike or carry out acts of industrial sabotage – that’ll be a short list then?
Are we to believe that it was the efforts of the ‘Blessed Margaret’ that have
brought the people of the former USSR to the state they are in today?
And we are to presume nobody, connected to then or current Tory Party was involved in sanction busting by ‘running’ oil and or arms to apartheid South Africa.
Remember the ‘terrorist’ Mandela?
Perhaps less time spent writing and more time spent reading may prove beneficial

I clicked on the link and it took me to the DirectGov website. Here’s what the text said (copied and pasted):

Job details
These are the details of the job selected
TESCO NIGHT SHIFT

Vacancy from Jobcentre Plus
Job No:

BSD/27442
SOC Code:

0
Wage

JSA+EXPENSES
Hours

TBC
Location

EAST ANGLIA IP32
Duration

Permanent
Date posted

09 February 2012
Pension details

No details held
Description

Interviews as part of SBWA, dates and times to be arranged by the store.Contact Amanda Evans at Tesco.
How to apply

For further details about job reference BSD/27442, please telephone Jobseeker Direct on 0845 6060 234. Lines are open 8.00am – 6.00pm weekdays only. All calls are charged at local rate. Call charges may be different if you call from a mobile phone. Alternatively, visit your local Jobcentre Plus Office and use the customer access phones provided to call Jobseeker Direct. The textphone service for deaf and hearing-impaired people is 0845 6055 255.
Printer friendly
133
Additional information

If you are unable to apply for the job advertised by the method displayed, due to a health condition or disability, please contact Jobcentre Plus for further assistance.

For more information about tax credits, visit the HM Revenue and Customs website

To find out how to get to this location go to Transport Direct

Jim,

In other words, this is a Government scheme, and you can an advert for it on a Government website, perhaps via a third Party site and people are suggesting the reports are not accurate?

Jesus, this isn’t difficult.

I have not disputed Tesco’s involvement with government schemes.

The dispute is about the accuracy of the OP in saying there is “an ad for on the Job Centre Plus website … for a Tesco Night Shift Worker … [paying] Job Seekers Allowance + expenses”.

Because the site that is linked to is not the Job Centre Plus website.

And there isn’t such an ad on the Job Centre Plus website.
http://jobseekers.direct.gov.uk/listjob.aspx?sessionid=4be9693e-a5c1-457f-a1f5-5d1de3151868&pid=1&sid=345043296&p=1&so=1

So a large part of the OP is wrong.

And the people commenting about it or retweeting it as if it is fact are credulous nitwits.

Anyone interested in finding out the ‘truth’, if you believe these lice are likely to tell the truth:

http://www.tescoplc.com/news/contact-the-media-centre/

Sorry, but I just don’t see how forcing people into what is tantamount to legitimised slavery cuts the welfare bill. True, those who drop out won’t be paid, but that will make little overall impression on the welfare bill.

So just where are the savings?

I think it’s pretty clear this is a false flag website probably put up by MI5 to discredit the Left. That’s the real story here, or should be. It’s obvious the Tories won’t be happy until they can turn the long term unemployed into sausage meat.

Ron Graves @ 71

This is not directly about cutting the welfare bill, this is about extending the welfare bill to those in most need; multi millionaires who are feeling the pinch as those on the lowest incomes are ground into the dirt, therefore spend less in shops like Tesco.

The humanity of it all. These poor buggers are forced to take a drop in profits.

All those wheelchair bound people who have their money stopped have stopped spending, but Tesco still need their profits, so they get slave labour and YOU pick up the bill, without getting clubcard points though.

It also helps humiliate the victims of Tory viciousness too, that is also a positive.

William Wilberforce the ‘Tory M.P’. surely he was a Liberal but he can be a Tory if it suits your argument better.

We go through this every single sodding time. Potted version: there was no Tory party at the end of the 18th century; for bonus points, there was no Liberal party then either. There was a split in the Whig party that turned into the 19th century Tory/Liberal divide. Wilberforce served in Pitt’s administration; the Pittite Whigs went on to be called Tories. The rest of the Whigs (Foxite if you like) went on to become the Liberal Party.

Maybe a touch more reading is called for all round.

And anway, what the hell is the point of all this Bob B-ish ‘here’s something that happened once’? So, some Tory MPs were supporters of apartheid South Africa. Some Labour MPs were supporters of Communist Russia – hell, some Labour MPs were in the pay of Communist Russia. What relevance does that have now?

@68. Kat
The link did not take you to a Government webpage.
It took you to what looks like a Government webpage.
Look at the top of your screen and note jobhits dot co dot uk.

Ceiliog @ 75

Does this forced labour scheme exist?
Are Tesco using the scheme?

If it does and if they are, then is it likely that such an advert would be produced?

Irrespective if this advert was actually put on the Direct Gov website, should Tesco be allowed free labour from the banks of the unemployed?

This is not slavery. This, in some ways, is worse.

Slaves were capital assets. In 1840, you could buy an African boy on the banks of the Congo for $5000 or 12 gallons of rum, equivalent in today’s prices to a brand new BMW.

Slaveholders in the Southern US often paid for a dentist to treat their slaves. The reason being, as with horses and other livestock, if a slave came up for sale, potential buyers would check to make sure the teeth were in good nick as an indication of the slave’s general health.

Today, if you work unwaged for Tescos, if you go on NHS Direct and try to find a dentist registering NHS paitients, you will be lucky to find one within 50 miles of your home. And you will still need to pay for checkups and any work done.

Slaves had value and it was in the interest of slaveholders to provide for them in the form of basic housing, healthcare, clothing allowance for childcare arrangements, food, not overworking them unless strictly neccessary and other basic neccessities and welfare provisions to keep them healthy and minimise depreciation.

Slaves had value.

These people are literally worthless to Tescos and other workfare “employers”.

79. Suburban Tory

Calm down everyone.

As a former jobcentre employee I’m shocked to discover that it was simply a Jobcentre error.

Slaveholders – Investors in people.

@76. Jim
My posts on this thread are about the hyperlink.
By all means criticise Tesco for real reasons but, don’t attack them for what appears to be JobCentrePlus error.

I have a very long list of complaints about the Tory/LibDem Government including their dubious methods regarding the unemployed.

82. the a&e charge nurse

[78] Tesco say (according to your link) It is an advert for work experience with a guaranteed job interview at the end of it as part of a Government-led work experience scheme.

Is ‘work experience’ a synonym for free labour – and why does the ‘work experience’ have to take place on the night shift – I smell a rat?

Suburban Tory @ 78

Yes, but where is the error? The headline describes ‘an error’ but the text disputes none of the basic facts.

The Government ‘provide’ (via coercion) free labour to its multi million quid backers.
Tesco exploit the victims of the Tory austerity drive.
Tesco admit that have issued an advert to that effect.

The only ‘error’ being is that the scumbags didn’t want it known that they are eventually planning to replace their workforce with these conscripted labourers. The ‘error’ is that decent people have seen through their exploitation racket.

One bunch of vermin exploiting people’s misery to feed the profits of one of this Country’s greediest and ruthless companies.

Still, every little helps.

“Slaves were capital assets. In 1840, you could buy an African boy on the banks of the Congo for $5000 or 12 gallons of rum, equivalent in today’s prices to a brand new BMW.”

That sounds most unlikely.

By 1840 the western slave trade was pretty much dead. There was still an eastern one, true, into the Middle East, but that wasn’t really into the Congo, not unless the Arabs from Zanzibar had gone a long way inland.

And $ 5,000 to buy a boy before transport? Laughably stupid number. $ 50 maybe, $ 5 possibly.

Slavery is (it still exists, yes)and was horrendous. But let us be real about it please.

85. Suburban Tory

Jim

It’s not a job it is a work placement for a short period leading to a guaranteed job interview. Also SBWA is voluntary. Not really slavery is it.

Unpaid work placements with employers were also part of the New Deal. Did you complain about that with your usual hysterical hyperbole?

Subsidies for employers were also a big selling point of the New Deal – taxpayers money going to employers big and small alike.

Most government employment initiatives are just a rebrand of something that has failed before. I’m sure the Work Programme will be no different.

86. Luis Enrique

I’m left wing, but this is not such a bad idea. It’s good that the government is striving to kickstart the economy, I can understand some people’s concerns, but this is good though. Oh and did I mention I was left wing?

87. the a&e charge nurse

[83] “Slavery is (it still exists, yes) and was horrendous” – are you talking about TESCO when you say it still exists?

Is @85 really Luis or someone spoofing him?

It’s not up to his usual high standards in terms either of content or style. And for that matter it contradicts the opinion state in @1 where he says he doesn’t like these sorts of schemes.

89. the a&e charge nurse

[84] “It’s not a job it is a work placement” – but why nights?

I’m pushing the boat out here but I wonder if no pay for night shifts is actually a better deal for TESCO than it is for unpaid bean stackers, sorry, I meant person on work experience?

90. the a&e charge nurse

[85] “I’m left wing, but this is not such a bad idea” – forced labour on nights, competitors must be trembling in fear about the prospect of such measures reinvigorating the UKs economy?

@8. Chaise Guevara: “I love the idea of a “guaranteed job interview”. Not a guaranteed job, you understand. But a job interview of your very own!”

I think that you may be trivialising the “guaranteed job interview”.

Firstly, job seekers send off loads of applications to which they do not receive any feedback. The “guaranteed job interview” may be the first opportunity for them to talk to a potential employer in a real life test.

Secondly, a “guaranteed job interview” isn’t cheap for a potential employer. Assume that employers who offer a “guaranteed job interview” are looking for people to take on. Otherwise, it would be money down the drain for them.

92. Luis Enrique

Oh goody, I have attracted the attentions of a brilliant satirist

93. the a&e charge nurse

[91] “Oh goody, I have attracted the attentions of a brilliant satirist” – apologies for [89]

94. Luis Enrique

Eds, if you can delete that fuckwit, I’d appreciate it.

John Tucker you make yourself look stupid when you lecture people about getting facts right but don’t get your facts right it is not a sub-domain of john centerplus it is a sub-domain of jobhits.co.uk/ sub-domains precede the top level domain not the other way round.

But this is disgusting its is slave labour & the government should not be exempt from employment laws such as minimum wage so why is this scheme not illegal?

@83

The $5000 figure was from a podcast I listened to the day before yesterday from Brown University, based on a slaver ship’s log; I may have misremembered the monetary sum, but the 12 gallons of rum and brand new BMW descriptions were accurate. A boy was more likely to survive transportation, you get three score years of ten of work from him and you can use him to breed new slaves while not loosing productivity. It’s not a totally absurd sum. I have got some more accurate sourced figures below.

By 1840 the western slave trade was pretty much dead.

That’s actually absolutely untrue. The international slave trade had been outlawed in the British Empire and it was by then illegal to import African slaves into the US, but the *internal* slave trade in the US (since importation was illegal) was booming and actually DOUBLED in the 25 years prior to the Civil War. Prices skyrocketed. Demand consistently outstripped supply. Slaves were by far the largest single commodity and component of the entire US ecconomy at the height of the industrial revolution, they were the largest single asset class, accounting for between a quarter and a fifth of GDP. That’s of the entire US, not just the South.

Here’s some figures. These are confirmed by the University of Texas:-

“Slave prices inflated rapidly as the institution expanded in Texas. The average price of a bondsman, regardless of age, sex, or condition, rose from approximately $400 in 1850 to nearly $800 by 1860. During the late 1850s, prime male field hands aged eighteen to thirty cost on the average $1,200, and skilled slaves such as blacksmiths often were valued at more than $2,000. In comparison, good Texas cotton land could be bought for as little as six dollars an acre. ”

Compare that (for the sake of arguement) to £350, which is probably what it might cost a store like Tescos to pay for a member of their staff to go to college 1 evening a week to get an NVQ Level 2 in Retail Management.

Or how much the NUM were striking for during the Miner’s Strike.

Then think about which relevant party in each case forked out the cash without a second thought, who did so only begrudgingly and who decided it would be industrial and ecconomic suicide to allow a 6% increase.

It is not directly related to this particular scheme but it is only a few years since the unions themselves were asking for job subsidies to be introduced i.e.the state should pay employers to retain staff.

” Demands by British trade unionists for the government to copy the German system of job subsidies to keep skilled workers employed were given a boost today when the International Monetary Fund released its latest overview of the global economy. ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/01/german-jobs-saved-imf

We are always hearing from some on the left that we should be more like Germany. One of the ways that German unemployment is currently relatively low is through paying employers to employ the unemployed.

” At the beginning of 2005, the German system of unemployment compensation was fundamentally reformed. Since then, employable needy job-seekers may receive a new means-tested and tax-financed basic income support, called ‘unemployment benefit II’, while several active labour market programmes support their integration into the labour market. Targeted wage subsidies, paid to employers for a limited period of time, are one of the programmes that have been established already before the recent reform. First, they reduce labour costs and can compensate the firm for a temporary gap between a worker’s wage and his or her productivity. Second, a period of subsidisation might help previous unemployed persons to disclose their productivity to an employer. Neumark (2008) concludes that wage subsidies might be a policy worth considering, if one strives to improve economic self-sufficiency via increasing earnings. ”
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3772.pdf

I tend not to like subsidies. However, we need to recognise that we are already paying out subsidies in unemployment benefits. Perhaps paying employers to employ people who cannot obtain a job would not be the worst idea in the world. Strong safeguards against abuse of just using the subsidised labour as replacement for existing jobs would need to be in place. Of course, in the loopy upside down world of the internet that would be slavery and the alternative of rotting on the dole is freedom.

98. So Much For Subtlety

52. donpaskini

Research published by the government found that this sort of scheme found that “there is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding
work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available
for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by
employers.”

Can. Interesting word. There may be little evidence that people who don’t want to work, don’t go on to find work. That is why we need to remove the passive alternative. They can work and get the JSA or not. That would be a better solution.

So a lose/lose for jobseekers and the government, though quite handy for Tesco’s who can cut their wage bill with help from the taxpayer.

No it isn’t. Can. Not Always Does. I am sure that people who do not want to work rarely go on to find work. But that does not mean that everyone fails to get a better job. Or even more. It just means some people don’t. Even if they don’t, they will still get a better CV. It is still a win-win. Because working for a short time and failing to get a job is still better than sitting at home in front of the TV smoking weed all day. For one thing they will probably be too busy to break into other people’s homes and steal their DVD players.

99. So Much For Subtlety

67. Barrie J

Would you have us believe that coincidence is the only connection between Tory Party donations from private health care providers and the so called ‘reforms’ to the NHS?

I don’t need you to believe anything. You need to prove there is a link. You have no proof of a link. There is no reason to think there is a link. It is simply paranoia of the David Ickes variety. If I was pushed to provide evidence, which I obviously do not need to, I would say that yes it is a coincidence as private health care providers have been funding the Tories for sixty years or more. They did not get them to back these sort of reforms. It is only now that we all recognise the NHS is in terminal decline and we are almost bankrupt that the government has been forced to act. The motivation here is the failure of the NHS. Not donations.

Or are the donations a simple act of charity?

I have no idea. You would have to ask the newly ennobled peers why they gave.

Even the ‘fat bloke’ down the pub can ‘follow the money’.

Which does not make him right does it. Fat blokes down the pub often say it is all the Jews – they too follow the money. That does not make them right either.

William Wilberforce the ‘Tory M.P’. surely he was a Liberal but he can be a Tory if it suits your argument better.

He was a close associate of Pitt, he opposed legalisation of Trades Unions, he opposed women taking part in politics, he supported restrictions on the working class being allowed to protest. He was a Tory. In fact these days he would be too far to the Right to join the Tories. And he was not on the Left.

Perhaps you can tell us what action by Disraeli the Tory P.M. caused Samuel Plimsoll to be suspended from Parliament – whoops it must have been Benj’s enthusiasiastic embrace of Plimsoll’s Bill – oh no. it wasn’t, he threw it out.

Plimsoll was rude. But Disraeli passed the law.

Lord Shaftesbury – I take my hat off to him, as a social reformer today he would be hard pressed to get selected for a safe Labour seat.

Of course. He was a Lord after all. Britain would be so much the poorer.

Perhaps you can name a current Tory M.P./ supporter/ donor who would encourage workers to strike or carry out acts of industrial sabotage – that’ll be a short list then?

Depends on the cause.

Are we to believe that it was the efforts of the ‘Blessed Margaret’ that have
brought the people of the former USSR to the state they are in today?

Well in some small part, although mostly it was the people of the former USSR.

And we are to presume nobody, connected to then or current Tory Party was involved in sanction busting by ‘running’ oil and or arms to apartheid South Africa.
Remember the ‘terrorist’ Mandela?

Mandela was a terrorist. He said so. Proudly. Leading a Communist Party of which he was probably a secret member. The Tories were right to keep him out of power until the USSR collapsed and instead of becoming another Stalin or Mengistu, he simply became another Turkmenbashi.

Even if anyone connected to the Tories were sanction-busting, so what?

Spike1138

This is not slavery. This, in some ways, is worse.

Just when you thought LC couldn’t get any stupider.

Slaveholders in the Southern US often paid for a dentist to treat their slaves. The reason being, as with horses and other livestock, if a slave came up for sale, potential buyers would check to make sure the teeth were in good nick as an indication of the slave’s general health.

And indeed, there is a large literature showing that American slaves were fed better than free Italians (at least from the South). So frickin what?

Today, if you work unwaged for Tescos, if you go on NHS Direct and try to find a dentist registering NHS paitients, you will be lucky to find one within 50 miles of your home. And you will still need to pay for checkups and any work done.

So you think that the horror of having to take a bus to see a dentist, what? once a year?, is comparable to the flogging, branding, whipping, raping and sale of entire families into slavery? Do tell.

These people are literally worthless to Tescos and other workfare “employers”.

Every year Tesco and its shareholders pay billions to care for the teeth of people like their workers. Not to mention feeding them, housing them, educating them and so on. You know, the welfare state. And yet you compare this to slavery.

@83

And $ 5,000 to buy a boy before transport? Laughably stupid number. $ 50 maybe, $ 5 possibly.

Hey Tim,

In the context of those University of Texas figures I quoted, the £5000 figure I quotes does sound a little high, I’ll admit, but it’s not totally absurd; it’s certainly the right order of magnitude. I probably have misremembered the figure, but it’s the “That’s a sh*t load of cash” aspect I was aiming at.

I’m prepared to stick by it for the most part, because remember, by 1840, the international, transatlantic triangle trade was illegal, but massively profitable. If you were caught and boarded by the Royal Navy, you could be hung, so it here was big, BIG money in contraband slave labour.

Plus, unaccompanied children were rarely taken as captives, so could command a high price, particularly males, who could be expected to provide 50 years or more heavy labour. Also, with the international trade outlawed, males were highly sought for stud value to breed the next generation of grow-your-own slaves, as awful as that obviously sounds. And the industrial revolution was on, just as the vast chugging, whirring engines of progress were tended by tiny, nimble hands while they were running and operating, so the textile industry of the South had need of such workers to keep the machines in constant working order in the dark, Satanic mills.

The plantation owners daughter wasn’t going to do it.

@83

And $ 5,000 to buy a boy before transport? Laughably stupid number. $ 50 maybe, $ 5 possibly.

Hey Tim,

In the context of those University of Texas figures I quoted, the £5000 figure I quotes does sound a little high, I’ll admit, but it’s not totally absurd; it’s certainly the right order of magnitude. I probably have misremembered the figure, but it’s the “That’s a sh*t load of cash” aspect I was aiming at.

I’m prepared to stick by it for the most part, because remember, by 1840, the international, transatlantic triangle trade was illegal, but massively profitable. If you were caught and boarded by the Royal Navy, you could be hung, so it here was big, BIG money in contraband slave labour.

Plus, unaccompanied children were rarely taken as captives, so could command a high price, particularly males, who could be expected to provide 50 years or more heavy labour. Also, with the international trade outlawed, males were highly sought for stud value to breed the next generation of grow-your-own slaves, as awful as that obviously sounds. And the industrial revolution was on, just as the vast chugging, whirring engines of progress were tended by tiny, nimble hands while they were running and operating, so the textile industry of the South had need of such workers to keep the machines in constant working order in the dark, Satanic mills.

The plantation owners daughter wasn’t going to do it.

Must go and watch Amistad again now…

But sorry, no, back to my actual point:- Slaves (under chattel slavery, as opposed to Werner Von Braun/Concentration Camp/V2 factory slavery or any of the other various kinds) had value, in fact a LOT of value, and were valued by slaveholders and slave traders (albeit as little more than livestock) – they were a capital asset and represented a long term investment and as such (please don’t misunderstand the next bit) in some sense, were taken care of to a certain extent.

The unwaged workfare staff represent no investment to Tescos and firms like them and are of no financial value whatsoever, so it’s inaccurate even to call it slavery, just because these staff are working for free; if a slave were to keel over at work or suffer from a heart flutter, it’s in the slaveholder’s own interest to at least make a token effort to try and make him well, get him back to work and back on his feet again to protect the slaveholder’s investment, get a better return for his initial outlay.

From the stories emerging from some of the Workfare unpaid staff at Tescos, were the same thing to happen to the, you might be lucky if they took you outside for some air and rang you an ambulance.

Suburban Tory @ 84

Right, first of. If you have been driven into unemployment by the Tories these schemes are not ‘voluntary’. You stand to lose your benefits if you do not attend your conscription.

Second, things like ‘new deal’ were largely a waste of time, no matter what government was in power. Job placements are likely to be used as a source of cheap/free labour, which is a pretty good indication of the value of the ‘skills’ you are teaching young people.

If there is any value in the training then Tesco would be doing this training anyway. If the work these conscripts are doing has no value then we are paying Tesco for providing sweet fuck all. Of course, even if the work had value at one point the logical conclusion of ‘teaching’ a long list of unemployed people to stack shelves means you will instantly kill of the market that you appear to be training them for.

Either way, taxpayer’s money is being handed over to Tesco and the other parasites within the scheme.

Charlieman @ 90

The “guaranteed job interview” may be the first opportunity for them to talk to a potential employer in a real life test.

But the employer has no incentive to hire a person on the course! Think about for a second. There are millions of unemployed people right now. Factor in the disabled with very limited options. Let us imagine we have close to a million 16 to 24 year olds unemployed. Now the government have offered Tescos shelf stackers in a modern day Todt organisation. Where Tesco lead ASDA, et al will follow, to the extent that everyone in retail will be doing this, Poundland have the same idea, admittedly they have a profit of a mere sixty million quid:

1) That will instantly kill of that line of work.
2) Anyone who goes onto that course will end up with limited skills.
3) Any potential employer will not be impressed by a skill set that has no market value.
4) These people will be tainted as unemployable because once you have been on an ‘unpaid placement’ you will be singled out as someone who was/is unable to secure real employment.

Why would I want to pay someone a wage when I can get people with a very precise skill set for free?

103. tigerdarwin

@ 38 Your the freeloader pal, what gives you the right to go to work and earn a pittance while the rest of us prop up the economy for you.

Na Dave he is a mummies boy Tory who was looked after by his mum and dad. No doubt they too sound like right wing foghorns, empty vessels make the most noise.
its usual for the spawn of rich Tory parents to sound off like this

104. tigerdarwin

@ 46I SMS. But it sure beats sitting on your arse for a year smoking weed in front of the TV. Try that on your resume and see where it gets you.

What you mean like Richard Branson or my friend who lived as a New Age Traveller for years and is now a multi millionaire. Like many who were idle as teens and ended up doing well.

The joke is of course that Tories pay their own children not to work for them in parliament. IDS paid hos wife not to work for hgim.
Typical Tory rubbish- one law for them and one law for the social inferiors like us.

Not me though I run a business , unlike the idiot IDS who could only lie about his degree and pretend to be a soldier in the army.

You are an unthinking nutjob SMS.

@97

This is not slavery. This, in some ways, is worse.

Just when you thought LC couldn’t get any stupider.

Which is why I was very careful to specify in my phrasing “some ways”, rather than “most ways”, “many ways”, “a lot of ways” or “quite a few ways”.

In some ways, Alaska is a better place to live than Hawaii. Does that make it better overall? And does that amount to a recommendation? It’s like the old joke about Mussolini, “At least he made the trains run on time” (he also drained the Pontine marshes and eliminated malaria from Italy, but why ruin a good cliche).., So in *some* ways (i.e., practically none) he managed to get things right. Does that 0.02% good overshadow the 99.98 mad f*ckery? No, it doesn’t.

And indeed, there is a large literature showing that American slaves were fed better than free Italians (at least from the South). So frickin what?

So, if you own your workers and they can’t leave to go and work for someone else or get a better job or just quit, the people who purchased that labour force with their capital investment have made a financial commitment to specific individuals within their workforce.

People today speak glibly in management speak of how “our most valuable asset is people: Our Staff”. When they say that, they don’t mean the people themselves, they mean the experience and skills that those people have acquired. So long as you retain the expertise and skills within the organisation, the people themselves are not a factor. If someone gets too ill to work or wants to raise a family, so long as they pass on their expertise to others (younger and less well-paid), what happens to them next is of no consequence (or interest) to the company and there is no business case to continue supporting them.

If the individual people who make up your labour force are your personal property, it makes good business sense to keep them (somewhat) healthy and (somewhat) well-fed, in order to maximise the return on your investment by getting them back on their feet and back to work as soon as possible.

In a slave-owning society, the capitalist businessman has a strong incentive to provide some form of basic healthcare and welfare provision for his workers, food, basic housing, childcare arrangements (gotta think about the next generation) and (to some extent, please don’t misunderstand me) not working your slaves to death. A slaveholder who does those things is protecting his investment and is incentivised to (to some extent) take care of his workers. He is committed to them.

In an underemployed, free-labour minimum-wage ecconomy in recession, the capitalist businessman has a strong incentive to provide as little as it is possible (and legal) to get away with providing to ensure his worker’s welfare.

If one of them drops dead, or had a hernia and can’t lift anymore, or keeps cancelling shifts because the babysitter let her down, no biggie, just swap them for another interchangable desperate, smelly peasant. And since they might leave at any time to squeeze out more dole scum kids, why waste time training them up or giving them skills?

We keep hearing all the time how firms are not creating jobs – I understand that, creating a job and hiring someone to do it is always a gamble and involves making a commitment, both to an individual and to the Government (mainly in the form of NI contributions to the Revenue), as well as things like public liability insurance, payroll, HR due diligence, employment law equal opportunities liabilities, etc., etc.

Hiring someone is a business risk. Simple as that. An employee may become an asset, but they are always a liability first, before they even set foot through the door on their first day.

Buying someone involves acquiring an asset. Unlike an employee, a slave is a tradeable commodity and has a value for as long as they live from the moment you buy them, even perhaps before you even see them. The risk is far, far lower.

If you buy and trade labour and skills, you can acquire them and redistribute them fairly immediately. If you hire someone, it’s weeks before they can start usually and you have to spend months of valuable time, effort and manpower training them up.

But that person has no firm commitment to work for you or provide a given level or productivity, so why commit more to them as a person than you have to? That’s bad business sense.

What I am saying is that for good or ill, a slaveholder has vested interest in whether or not an individual member of his workforce lives or dies; an employer has a vested interest in retaining skills and experience within the company, but beyond that, they’re indifferent as to whether an individual staff memeber lives or dies (provided it means they don’t need to recruit); under Workfare, Tescos and other employers have no commitment and no loyalty and no obligations or liabilities to the people labouring to make their businesses run for no wages, so from an business respect, not only do they not care if you live or die, it doesn’t even cost them anything to replace you.

I call that Win-Win from Tescos point of view.

So you think that the horror of having to take a bus to see a dentist, what? once a year?, is comparable to the flogging, branding, whipping, raping and sale of entire families into slavery? Do tell.

I wasn’t comparing a trip to the dentist with any of those things. As I think was fairly obvious by my not mentioning or referring to any of them.

I was comparing and highlighting the contrast between the interest (and willingness to fork out cash) that a slaveholder would have in ensuring that his workers had healthy teeth (there’s a good business case for spending the money, and many -but not all- did), with the interest that large, multinational employer has in ensuring the same thing for it’s minimum wage employees (absolute zero) and commenting on the irony.

It’s made all the more ironic by virtue of the fact that we notionally have a comprehensive public health service, free at the point of need; if a slave has a tooth that’s gone septic and threatening to cause a life-threatening abcess, it’s likely the owner will call the dentist out to see her rather than sending her to see him. It’s also fair to assume (for obvious reasons) that the unfortunate slave will pay nothing for the service.

Whereas, if you are lucky enough to find an NHS Dentist that will take you on, it’s more than likely going to involve a journey of many miles to get there for the same service and even if you are on minimum wage and work for a big, fluffy, caring multinational Investor in People like Tesco, you’re still going to need to pay for the privilege of getting the rotten tooth tugged out of your head to prevent it killing you. And yes, I know that NHS Dental charges are the fault of/more directly attributable to paying for the Korean War than increasing Tesco’s profit margins, but the world is a complex place and the irony lies in where you get to, not how you got there.

Every year Tesco and its shareholders pay billions to care for the teeth of people like their workers. Not to mention feeding them, housing them, educating them and so on. You know, the welfare state.

And so they bloody well should. I do too, as do you (I assume). I don’t expect 56 year old unemployed grandfathers to work 40 hours a week for me, 6 weeks straight, doing fairly strenuous physical labour for no money and nothing in return, whilst verbally abusing and humiliating him and threatening to report his lip and bad attitude back to DWP and get his benefits cut.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/tescos-workfare-i-can-just-get-another-unemployed-person.288525/

I also don’t try to ruin businesses and individuals who have taken a conscious decision not to supply to me by systematically undercutting their business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2947463/Tesco-backs-down-from-fight-over-Tyrrells-crisps.html

Nor, do I try to impose my will on entire communities via massive (literal) land grabs, dictating rural and suburban development (and box-cutter uniformity and soulless blandness) for generations to come, employing very similar tactics to those of English landowners in Ireland for much of the last 500 years, it seems.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1381639014893922585&hl=en-GB

I expect to sometimes not be granted planning permission for things I put up on my land and I expect to be ordered to tear them down by the council if I build something different to what was agreed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-riding-roughshod-over-planning-rules-mps-are-told-518601.html

Those are just a few examples. I could easily give you many more. You may well say, Every year Tesco and its shareholders pay billions…[to fund] the welfare state. – there are two obvious ways to characterise that, if you don’t mind. Firstly, complying with the law. Secondly, doing the absolute bare minimum.

What do think they should get in return for such generousity? A cookie? A pat on the back? A full, company-wide UK tax audit accompanied by a full public enquiry by the land registry to find out what else they stole and took that wasn’t theirs, or how else they’ve been taking the piss for years?

Actually, that last one sounds alright.

And yet you compare this to slavery.

Do you actually expect us to be thankful that they’ve merely been bolstering their workforce and increasing their profit margins by staffing their shittest store rotas with desperate, vulnerable long-term unemployed people, bullying them and exploiting their fear of having their benefits cut and eagerness to work and just not paying them, as opposed to locking them in chains, whipping them for slowing down or getting “saucy” with their aisle supervisor, forcing them to sleep on the premises and leaving them at the mercy of the perverted sadist with the lazy eye who runs the cheese counter on the Tuesday day shift?

Well, for what it’s worth, thank you. We must be grateful for small mercies, I’m sure you’ll agree.

The fact that the cheap bastards probably refused to fork out for the padlocks and shackles without a taxpayer subsidy to buy them with, I shall try to be the bigger man and overlook on this occasion.

And not for nothing, but corporate social responsibility and honoring the hard work and commitment of the people who work for you and the local community in which you operate might begin with paying all your taxes in full, but it sure hell doesn’t end with it. Pablo Escobar built schools (the Medellin were another cartel like Tescos, after all); Suge Knight funded youth centres and daycare creches in South Central for single mothers on welfare; Freddie Mercury gave half the people he ever f*cked a brand new car (or so I’m told); Ronnie and Reg were bad lads but diamonds to their dear old Mum, and always brought her flowers.

But sorry, all those people were either gangsters, drug barons or snorted half Bolivia off the map. And Tescos is a good, honest, patriotic British-based multinational firm that always pays it’s taxes on time, never takes more than it needs, always treats others fairly and never exploits anyone when given the opportunity (and permission) of the state that in large part helps to bankroll.

Thank you, Tesco! You’re the best!!

106. So Much For Subtlety

102. tigerdarwin

What you mean like Richard Branson or my friend who lived as a New Age Traveller for years and is now a multi millionaire. Like many who were idle as teens and ended up doing well.

Ahh, the “my Granddad smoked five packs a day and he died at 99″ fallacy. Surely you can work out why this is a pile of steaming fetid dingo’s kidneys on your own, right?

The joke is of course that Tories pay their own children not to work for them in parliament. IDS paid hos wife not to work for hgim.

I doubt he did but so what?

You are an unthinking nutjob SMS.

I am not sure the unthinking bit applies to my side of the conversation.

107. So Much For Subtlety

99. Spike1138

In the context of those University of Texas figures I quoted, the £5000 figure I quotes does sound a little high, I’ll admit, but it’s not totally absurd; it’s certainly the right order of magnitude. I probably have misremembered the figure, but it’s the “That’s a sh*t load of cash” aspect I was aiming at.

Sorry but an adult male in the US was one fifth of the cost you said for a child in Congo. That means the figure was not a little high, it means it was rubbish. I also doubt that 12 gallons of rum was close to that much either. Otherwise RN sailors would have been given gin.

I’m prepared to stick by it for the most part, because remember, by 1840, the international, transatlantic triangle trade was illegal, but massively profitable. If you were caught and boarded by the Royal Navy, you could be hung, so it here was big, BIG money in contraband slave labour.

No it wasn’t illegal. It was illegal to sail to a British or an American port. It was not illegal in 1840 to sail to a Spanish one or a Portuguese/Brazilian one – as long as you kept below the equator. Which means that smuggling a slave into the US might have been profitable, but selling one in Congo wouldn’t have been. The Portuguese are probably buying most of them remember. The jump in price is not in Congo, but crossing the US border.

Plus, unaccompanied children were rarely taken as captives, so could command a high price, particularly males, who could be expected to provide 50 years or more heavy labour.

Children were more likely to die and you had to invest massively in them before they were able to do a proper day’s work. That is why people paid more for adult males. You have also got the first bit backwards – they were rarely taken as captives because they could not command a high price. If someone wanted them and was willing to pay for them, they would have been expensive. If they are so cheap no one bothers, no one wants them.

Also, with the international trade outlawed, males were highly sought for stud value to breed the next generation of grow-your-own slaves, as awful as that obviously sounds.

It is also a figment of the abolitionists imaginations. Humans, like elephants, take too long to grow up to make “captive breeding” economic. Which is why slaves are a product of war. The US was an exception I admit, but as a general rule, if you will pay well enough to allow the rearing of two or more children, you may as well hire a free man. There is no evidence of deliberate breeding in the US.

And the industrial revolution was on, just as the vast chugging, whirring engines of progress were tended by tiny, nimble hands while they were running and operating, so the textile industry of the South had need of such workers to keep the machines in constant working order in the dark, Satanic mills.

Umm, what textile industry? The problem with slaves and machines is that the slaves have zero interest in the machines working well and every interest in them breaking down. By, say, a brick being chucked into the works. Which is why virtually no industrial slaves have ever existed anywhere in the world.

The unwaged workfare staff represent no investment to Tescos and firms like them and are of no financial value whatsoever, so it’s inaccurate even to call it slavery, just because these staff are working for free

So do volunteers. Is Oxfam relying on slave labour? You continue to ignore the obvious – Tesco invests massively in the welfare of its workers and all other British people through the tax system. We have this social contract thing.

Which means the ambulance comes. And takes you to a nice hospital. Unlike with American slaves.

108. mary colclough

OUTRAGED.

Its all a conspiracy to cover the ideology of Tories.Dont care about ordinary people just rich. Want to keep working classes down. Like something from a Dickens novel. God help us all

We need to boycott Tesco. Is there any way of getting this started. No experience of this. Any ideas how to start this.

109. Graham Tucker

Darren said
John Tucker you make yourself look stupid when you lecture people about getting facts right but don’t get your facts right it is not a sub-domain of john centerplus it is a sub-domain of jobhits.co.uk/ sub-domains precede the top level domain not the other way round.

Dearest Darren

Yes of course you are correct and my humble apologies. I should get at least 50 lashes and no doubt you would not hesitate handing them out. I am registered blind and my text speech software (Supernova) screwed up but I checked my post and cannot find where I used the word John or john.

To think I paid over a thousand quid for this crap software.

The point I was making was that the website was not a direct.gov web site and the job did not exist in the form claimed which seems to have been due to an IT error. I don’t give a monkey about Tesco’s involvement or non involvement I’m all right Jack.

Oh yes must make sure the bastards have paid my benefits into my bank account as I need to buy a few rounds.

Believe what you want to believe and see what you want to see.

@107 No evidence of deliberate breeding in the US eh? Guess you’d best tell America’s black community that the stories their grand parents were told by their parents/grandparents were a bunch of lies then.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States
Not to mention Wikipedia needs correcting again. Apparently.

Slave breeding: dunno about the US but the island of Barbuda was essentially a slave farm. Run by the Codringtons who used the profits to build the house that James Dyson now lives in.

Bloody fine house too although with more than a tad of a taint to it.

So that’s what thirty plus years of right wing economics has brought Britain to: work for six months without pay and get an interview at the end of it. About thirty years ago I did a summer of night work at a major supermarket and it wasn’t bad. Time and a half (double for weekends), first pick of the expired food and enough staff so that no one had to exert themsleves.

The problem with slaves and machines is that the slaves have zero interest in the machines working well and every interest in them breaking down. By, say, a brick being chucked into the works. Which is why virtually no industrial slaves have ever existed anywhere in the world.

Up to a point, Lord Copper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tredegar_Iron_Works

@107

I probably have misremembered the figure, but it’s the “That’s a sh*t load of cash” aspect I was aiming at.

Sorry but an adult male in the US was one fifth of the cost you said for a child in Congo. That means the figure was not a little high, it means it was rubbish.

Well, I apologise. I was working from memory and without notes and typing with me thumbs from my phone when I wrote that, so Googling the precise figure was impractical and awkward. I will, however, provide you with a more accurate figure with citations and peer reviewed international journals for your reference straight away next time, if it will make you happy (although somehow I doubt that it will). Smartarse.

Under those circumstances, I still say that when remembering any figure like that on the price of something 170 years in the past, on another continent and in an industry that no longer exists (and hasn’t done for almost 150 years), if you get it within half an order of magnitude out, you’re doing pretty well. Given that I read a study the other day about the current scale of Methamphetamine addiction in the army and general population of North Korea the other day which quoted an estimate of “Somewhere between 25-50%”, I don’t think that’s half bad.

None of which detracts in any way from the validity of my original point, which was “purely as an asset, slaves were bloody expensive the last time there was a widely accessible market for buying people to work for you, and therefore very valuable to the people who profited by their labour”, which I notice you have not attempted to rebutt, since it’s fairly clear and obvious that was the case from the knowledge you and I (and anyone else who has looked into the subject, or who’s figured it out themselves via logic) have available. If for no other reason than the fact that no-one would cross the ocean in a sailing vessel of highly dubious character, seaworthiness, safety and hygine as many times as a lot of merchantmen did if it wasn’t incredibly lucrative. Which it was, and then some.

I also doubt that 12 gallons of rum was close to that much either. Otherwise RN sailors would have been given gin.

Not much gin to be had when you’re anchored on station off the coast of Jamaica though, is there? Given that Juniper berries grow best in Northern and Central Europe. That would have meant schlepping across the third largest body of the water in the world with barrels of the stuff. Hardly worth it just for the sake of a Martini.

Not to mention, as is well known, gin makes you emotional. The last thing you want on a long voyage is to be stuck at sea with a crew full of overly-emotional sailors. Or perhaps you do, I don’t know…? We haven’t met socially, obviously… Not really my cup of tea, but who knows, whatever floats your boat (so to speak), SMS. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

Besides, as you know doubt know full well, the Navy weren’t given rum, they were given grog, which is watered down and so 12 gallons would go a long way.

Besides, just because it’s not worth so much in the West Indies at that point (or even England, for that matter), on the coastline of West Africa, it’s a very different story. Many of the local tribes, communities or North African corsairs were either Muslim, had no cultural knowledge or awareness of alcohol, fermentation or distillation process. They hadn’t got a clue how to make this stuff and lacked the facilities or equipment to make any themselves in their bush hut villages, even if they had any of the ingredients (which they didn’t, since they were all back on the other side of the Atlantic).

If you’re a local Chieftan or warlord or a Berber Corssair trading on the Gold Coast in 1840, there’s no way on Earth you can get hold of 12 gallon-sized barrels of Jamaican rum unless you (somehow) sail to the other side of the Atlantic to get them yourself or you’re bartering with a newly arrived Captain who’s just come from there and you’re willing to pay through the nose to get it (not least because his crew in all likelihood do not want to part with it.

Plus, you’re forgetting, all of this is illegal (which I know you dispute, but we’ll get to that in just a moment) – these men are smugglers. The rum is contraband and the slaves they’re possibly being exchanged for are also contraband – if you take the rum to England, you’re going to have to smuggle it in past the excise men. Again, all of this is illegal and again, incredibly profitable for that fact.

No it wasn’t illegal. It was illegal to sail to a British or an American port.

No. You’re correct in the letter of the law (although you’re understating it in a way that’s ultimately pretty majorly misleading), but not the full substance and detail of the law. What you say is, in every important respect, not true.

The US Constitution, adopted in 1787, contained within it a compromise that allowed for the continuance of the regulated importation of newly enslaved African captives up until 1808 when Congress enacted a federal law banning further importation of slaves, whilst allowing the internal trade of slaves already in the States and their descendants to continue unimpeded.

But demand was still enormous and the traders were making too much money, in some cases just landing their human cargo in Spanish Florida, Mexico or Texas (not yet part of the Union) and just walking them over the border. Even after that, the law had to be tightened up several times and there were still steady reports of smuggled slave ships arriving in the Carolinas in the dead of night up right up until the start of the Civil War, forty years later. And the penalty for doing so was indeed death. It was classed as an act of piracy and you could be hung (provided it wasn’t a Southern judge or Congressman who was paying you to import some fresh African blood to begin with, of course).

As for Britain, there was no recognition under English statute or common law acknowledging the legal existence of slavery in the British Isles; in 1772, a London court ruled and affirmed on that basis that any slave of any nationality who arrived in England by any means was automatically free from the moment that he (or she) arrived, with Scottish Courts ruling likewise shortly afterwards.

The 1807 Slave Trade Act made trading in slaves illegal everywhere in the British Empire (apart from a couple of exceptions), at which point it was made clear that the Royal Navy would board any ships suspected to be carrying slaves, confiscate the slaves, free them, and clap the crew in irons until and unless they were able to pay the fine of £100 for every slave they were caught carrying. With the 1833 Act, all the remaining slaves were emancipated at the Treasury’s expense, with the British slaveholders being compensated at the full market rate (something Ron Paul and a fair few other Libertarian / PaleoConservative still insist could have been done with the remaining American slaves instead of having a Civil War, although where they would have found the $500Bn it would have cost in 1860 is anyone’s guess).

But the point is, it’s misleading to say that Britain outlawed the importation of slaves in 1807; legally, slavery had never existed in Britain and if you brought your slaves to Britain, they weren’t slaves anymore. They didn’t outlaw the importation of slaves to Britain. They outlawed the importation of slaves into Canada. They outlawed the importation of slaves into Jamacia, Beleize; Monserrat, St. Lucia. They outlawed the export of slaves from the Cape colony. They outlawed the export of slaves from British trading posts all along West Africa. Since the Americans had little Navy to speak of (see the War of 1812), the Royal Navy was called upon to help the Americans enforce their own Federal Law – it was Royal Navy vessels that boarded Carolina-bound slavers, not US Navy ships. The French had (twice) abolished the international trade in 1789 and again under Napoleon and since we had destroyed much of their navy at Trafalgar (as with those Portuguese and Spanish Navy vessels you refer to too), we helped those crippled maritime powers to enforce their own laws too, as well as agreeing treaties granting the RN authority to police the trade from the Dutch and other smaller trading fleets.

Any vessel, of any size, crossing the Atlantic East to West, of any flag, especially when running the blockade patrolled by the West Africa Squadron from 1818 onwards was liable to be interdicted, boarded and searched. If Africans were found on board, the crew would be clapped in irons themselves, the ship seized and any human contraband cargo being smuggled onboard would be released and returned to Africa by way of the squadron fort at Freetown in what later became Liberia.

From 1835 onwards, they would capture and confiscate any ship with chains and shackles and other equipment on board, even if they had not taken on captives yet.

In short, the penalties were massive and the odds of getting caught, fined a King’s Ransom and loosing ownership of your vessel were very, very high indeed. Flying a Portuguese flag and claiming to be bound for Rio would not get you let off.

But people still tried it on. They still did it, apparently all the time, in spite of the risks. African slaves were clearly, quite clearly, very much in demand and very highly prized and valued everywhere by 1840 and people were willing to pay the premium, just as much as they were prepared to risk financial ruin and/or the gallows if they were caught smuggling people.

So you pou-pouing of the notion that the figure I mentioned is clearly utterly absurd and “rubbish” is doubly ignorant and condescending; have a think about what you’re actually saying:- essentially, “That’s nonsense I can’t believe anyone would ever pay that much for another human being, you’d have to be absolutely mad to buy a little kid at those prices…”

Well, you’d have to be *fairly* mad to purchase, take ownership of, shackle, enslave and kidnap another human being, particularly a child. Not to mention, utterly cut off and isolated from your own basic humanity by your own gargantuan, obscenely corpulent avaricious lust for material wealth and self-enrichment to even consider it as an option in the first place. And that’s before you even get on to worrying over the risk of being hung for doing so.

Would you like to haggle and argue over the price of another human life some more and whether or not there were the right numbers of zeros in it? Or are you willing to acknowledge the premise that slaves were incredibly valuable assets to people who bought them or used them as a workforce and move on?

Slaves were valuable. Once the international trade was banned, REALLY valuable. And as the business risk for supplying contraband increases, the prices go through the roof and very quickly approaches silly money; for comparisson, a Prison Officer once told me the standard rate bribe for a bottom-of-the-range Pay and You Go phone smuggled into a category B or C Prison was £800, rising to £1200 for category A prisons. And £50 to smuggle in a (hot) Big Mac meal, although personally, that sounds on the low side to me.

Which means that smuggling a slave into the US might have been profitable, but selling one in Congo wouldn’t have been.

You’ve missed the point entirely.

The captives were not traded at the Congo end for currency, they were bartered. For the African traders doing the bartering, they were bartering to obtain something scarse a highly valuable to them which were not easy to get hold of, in exchange for something (sorry, someone – went a bit Tescos, there) the slave crew knows will make them big dollars at the other end.

Jamaican rum is plentiful and abundant in Jamaica. In Africa, it’s rarer than hen’s teeth and everybody wants it. The slaver captain can pick up rum by the gallon for mere pennies in Carribiean take them across the ocean and swap them for a human child, who someone in Batton Rouge will pay him $5000 (or thereabouts) on delivery.

If the sanction-busting Southerners had wanted any old slaves, they could have bought them in Rio or Havana or even Kingston and had them shipped over; they realised though that three generations in, all the time working in malarial heat and humidity under by far the worst plantation conditions anywhere, the poor buggers were liable to be malnourished, emaciated, scarred all over and worked half to death before they ever left the island. The Cotton Barons didn’t want Cuban or Haitian second hand slaves, they wanted fresh, strong African slaves or none at all, and were prepared to pay for (as they saw it) the premium.

So the deal isn’t *meant* to be profitable for the people-smugglers on the African end of the triangle trade, it’s meant to be profitable for the local enslaver they bartered with, who gets himself 5 year’s supply of rum and gets to live like a Lord by running the booze monopoly for the entire area.

The captain has taken something of lesser value to him and traded it for something he perceives as higher value for which someone will give him lots of dollars – I take it you understand that part.

You can only make a profit if you sell AND acquire things, otherwise you will run out of things to sell.

You’re arguing an unpopular, boldly pro-big business on a firmly left-of-centre message board down amongst a great many socialist co-contributors; do you actually know how Capitalism works?

Because if not, I can draw you a diagram if that will help.

It is also a figment of the abolitionists imaginations. Humans, like elephants, take too long to grow up to make “captive breeding” economic. Which is why slaves are a product of war. The US was an exception I admit, but as a general rule, if you will pay well enough to allow the rearing of two or more children, you may as well hire a free man. There is no evidence of deliberate breeding in the US.

What, because we don’t have any event flyers left to us by history advertising the times and days when white slaveholders from the area could pay to come and watch? Grow up, and wake up.

Others have answered this particularly dense assertion already far better than I have, but, I’m sorry, what…? Elephants carry their young for over two years and only ever have one calf per birth. Leaving aside the fact that that’s a full two and a half times longer than human mothers (assuming full term), you know as well as I do that human females can carry a child to full term from the age of 13 or younger (Sally Hemmings was 14 when she first hooked up with Jefferson, although he may have waited til she was about 16 before going there, that’s not certain), and are capable of doing so potentially every year for the next 35 years or more.

As for if you will pay well enough to allow the rearing of two or more children, you may as well hire a free man., that’s absolute bunkum and tosh; have you never heard of a workhouse? Or a debtors prison? Or foundling hospitals?

You’re entirely proving my original point; if you don’t pay a living wage, people will surrender their freedom because they can’t afford to live or feed themselves. If they can’t afford to feed their child, children will be abandoned on doorsteps, in front of hospitals or in the middle of the street. Or sell their children to wealthy, childless couples. There are reports that it’s already beginning to happen in Greece, things have become so bad there. People will enslave themselves and their offspring for a guaranteed meal and a roof over their heads. Just don’t count on the meal being up to much nutrition-wise or quality-wise because they want you back out as soon as possible. Can’t let you get comfortable. What do you expect, charity?

If you’re an employer or the owner of a workhouse, the last thing you want is your inmates breeding, cutting down on productivity and producing another useless mouth to feed.

If you’re a slaveholder, you want your relatively unproductive (sorry any ladies present, their opinion, not my own, obviously) female slaves to make you some new slaves. As many as possible, as strong and healthy as possible and the more the merrier.

Look up the phrase “Slave Power” – the existence of slave labour in a society drives down free-labour wages below a subsistence level and creates underemployment and population in the free population.

The problem with slaves and machines is that the slaves have zero interest in the machines working well and every interest in them breaking down. By, say, a brick being chucked into the works.

No, that’s Luddites, not slaves. Mechanisation deprives skilled and semi-skilled free labourers of work opportunities. If a slave breaks a machine or even if the machine breaks down on it’s own, the slave operating it will be thrashed to within an inch of his or her life. The slave would live in mortal dread of the machine ever breaking down.

Umm, what textile industry? Two thirds of slaves worked farming and harvesting cotton and although much of it was exported before being made into clothes (chiefly in Manchester, of course), by the 1860s, they had realised that this made little sense and begun to establish cotton mills, mainly in the upper South. Slaves also worked in construction and certain sectors of heavy industry (usually the dangerous ones) like ship building, for example. Or mining.

Which is why virtually no industrial slaves have ever existed anywhere in the world.

It’s unusual under chattel slavery, I grant you, but far from unheard of. If you expand the definition just slightly to include indentured servitude, I’m ready to take the tour of the iPad factory in Nianjing whenever you say the word.

slaves are a product of war. The US was an exception I admit,

Pretty substantial exception though, really. Especially since it was the largest, most ecconomically significant and expansive slave society in all human history and also the only one adminstered under capitalist principles.

If the Romans had been less autocratic and hierarchical, I’m sure they would have nudged the profit margins up a bit more. And you ignore the fact that the Romans regularly initiated and *started* wars on a pretext with the specific aim of acquiring large numbers slaves in the process.

So do volunteers. Is Oxfam relying on slave labour?

No, they’re relying on volunteers. Being principally a voluntary organisation and a not-for-profit, that would appear to make good sense, in the same way that it wouldn’t if it were a carpet warehouse or a petrol station.

(Unless it was a voluntary petrol station. But I don’t think they exist. Yet.)

People volunteer their time for nothing because they want to and they believe in the cause and want to support the good work that they do.

Let me put it this way for you : – People like Oxfam. More than like Tesco. A lot of people think Oxfam’re really good. Not so many people say that about Tesco.

You have to pay people if you want them to work there.

Or, on the basis of current evidence, you *couldn’t* get people to work there even *if* you paid them.

That’s why they’ve ganging up like playground bullies with the DWP and the Job Centre to try and make ‘em.

That make sense to you now I’ve explained it to you like that? Or would you like someone else to have a go if that’s still too hard?

@113

Well, blow me down. Look at that.

I know a Dark Satanic Mill when I see one, alright. And I’m looking at one right now.

Here’s an interesting question from the point of view of macroeconomics – if Margaret Thatcher could have enslaved Arthur Scargill and the NUM in 1984-85 (I’m sure the thought did cross her mind) – would we still have a coal mining industry?

I’m not sure if I can figure out the answer to that one…

Opinions?

107. So Much For Subtlety

” Umm, what textile industry? The problem with slaves and machines is that the slaves have zero interest in the machines working well and every interest in them breaking down. By, say, a brick being chucked into the works. Which is why virtually no industrial slaves have ever existed anywhere in the world. ”

Slave labour was used in some manufacturing in the Upper South and port cities. Industrial sabotage may have been a marginal factor, however, the main reason industrial slaves were not used is because the South did not have much mass production industry anyway. They were an agrarian economy producing agricultural commodities for export. Moreover, the agriculture was not undergoing mechanisation like the rest of the country. Mechanisation obviously requires the development of an industry making the capital goods tools for use in agriculture. The existence of slave labour meant such industries did not evolve in the South because there was no pressure to mechanise. It was a form of the ‘ resources curse ‘ that often sees nations rich in resources fail to develop an industrial base. The actual resource of the South were in fact slaves.

Furthermore, mass industrial production requires a mass consumer market to buy consumption goods. However, the South was predominately a top-heavy economy in terms of income with agricultural oligarchs accruing most of the value generated. With slaves receiving no wages and often making their own tools and clothes. The economy of the South was not going to generate consumer demand. Therefore, the labour structure of the South meant that neither capital goods nor consumption goods manufactures would develop without customers to buy their goods. As long as slavery existed the economy would remain predominately agrarian. No need to worry about slaves engaging in industrial sabotage, because the industry was unlikely to develop while they were slaves.

117. Chaise Guevara

@ 115 Spike

“Here’s an interesting question from the point of view of macroeconomics – if Margaret Thatcher could have enslaved Arthur Scargill and the NUM in 1984-85 (I’m sure the thought did cross her mind) – would we still have a coal mining industry?”

I doubt the thought did cross her mind, but… would we still have a coal-mining industry if we used slaves? Sure, unless we’d mined all the coal by now.

118. Robin Levett

@SMFS #99:

Mandela was a terrorist. He said so. Proudly.

Cite. Remember that the last cite you produced for this claim had Mandela denying point-blank that he was a terrorist; and claiming that quite apart from his moral objections, terrorism was counterproductive.

I note however that your claim of Mandela being a communist has been downgraded to “probably”; you may be catching onto the idea of evidence after all.

@117

I doubt the thought did cross her mind, but… would we still have a coal-mining industry if we used slaves? Sure, unless we’d mined all the coal by now.

Well that’s just it though, the majority of the pit closures in 1991-92 weren’t because all the coal had run out, they were because it had become “uneconomic” to continue operating the mine.

(Although, if a nationalised public utility can’t be kept on running at a loss, I don’t know what can)

The main excuse given was that the price of coal on international markets had remained low relative to the rate of inflation and wasn’t keeping pace with wage increases and the cost of living, so it was made no sense from a business standpoint to keep on a massive, skilled workforce which was the main capital cost of keeping so many pits running while coal could be imported far more cheaply from Europe and the Far East.

It was always going to be the miners and their salaries that made the difference in giving the government the economic justification to axe the whole industry ; it was all those skilled technical salaries that kept things in the red just long enough for them to put into action the final betrayal, when it eventually came.

Never mind that threw whole communities on the scrap heap of total collapse in the local economy and plunged hundreds of families into almost instant poverty. Nearly all in solid , died in the wool Red Labour constituencies, of course.

It’s hard to to imagine maybe there might be some senior civil service Grammar School oik in DWP who masterminded Workfare, starting out his career 30 years ago and saying to himself, “I know! That’s a brilliant idea! They want to carry on working down the filthy mine but we can’t afford to pay them what their asking for, and there *is*still some coal at the bottom somewhere… The dole’s way cheaper, it’s below minimum wage… Why don’t we just make the whole lot of ‘em redundant, let ‘em stew for a year or so with no pay, like they did in ’85, only this time, when they’ve had enough and they’re read to go back to work and stop rafting about on picket lines, let ‘em go back down the pit if they really insist, only this time tell them that the money’s all run out and we can only afford to pay them what they would be getting for their dole money anyway! Win-win! Problem solved!”

Some of you dont half talk rubbish. Im sorry. I had all the great intentions of coming here without being impolite but the more I read the more I decided some of you wouldnt understand polite.

I am currently unemployed. Do I sit on my behind all day and smoke weed? I WISH. I dont know how (or why) some people seem to think that £65 a week is untold riches but it certainly isnt. After gas, electricity, looking after my pets and then my own (usually smart price) food there is NOTHING left. Nothing. I often go 2 or 3 days without any money at all. No luxuries. No nights out. No new clothes. Just the basics. I spend every day looking for work and I am trying to study alongside it so I can get a better job. Oh but wait! The government wont let me study and claim benefits…what a surprise? No. By not allowing me to up my chances of a career they keep me in “available for slave labour” category which is much more beneficial to their millionaire, banker buddies.

I havent always been unemployed. This is the first time in my life I have been out of work and as I remember rightly, I have always paid taxes and NI. Now its my turn to claim them back. I invested in other people so if and when the time came, I could have the same benefits extended to me. Thank God we live in a society that looks after people when they need it or we could all be living in tents like the poorest in the USA (see Panorama).

Paying workers creates a solid economy. Slave labour creates slaves.

Oh and I forgot. Tesco are part of this scheme and I am assuming the “Job Center error” was making the advert public.

The TPA are, unsurprisingly, quiet about taxpayers subsidizing large corporations like Tesco. Not only are taxpayers stumping-up for the unemployed to stack shelves but the retail and service industries employ the largest number of people who claim tax credits.
It would be interesting to know just what percentage of Tesco’s labour bill is passed on to the rest of us.

123. Another Nick

@’Nick’ #13

“People are at liberty to stop claiming job-seekers allowance”.

You might as well say ‘people are at liberty to starve and freeze to death if they don’t like working menial jobs for nothing”.

Oh, yeah, and I forgot “MWAH-HA-HA-HA”.

124. So Much For Subtlety

110. Cylux

No evidence of deliberate breeding in the US eh? Guess you’d best tell America’s black community that the stories their grand parents were told by their parents/grandparents were a bunch of lies then.

You would have to show some such stories existed.

Not to mention Wikipedia needs correcting again. Apparently.

Look what the call “slave breeding”:

Slave breeding in the United States were those practices of slave ownership that aimed to influence the reproduction of slaves in order to increase the wealth of slaveholders.[1] Slave breeding included coerced sexual relations between male and female slaves, promoting pregnancies of slaves, sexual relations between master and slave with the aim of producing slave children, and favoring female slaves who produced a relatively large number of children

So pretty much any step that a slave owner took to increase the health of slave women is described as slave breeding. Even when it clearly wasn’t. If an owner became concerned about the poor health of his slaves and improved the condition of new mothers, this is hardly breeding.

Even so evidence for it in that wikipedia page is woeful.

Tim Worstallt

Slave breeding: dunno about the US but the island of Barbuda was essentially a slave farm. Run by the Codringtons who used the profits to build the house that James Dyson now lives in.

Allegedly. The evidence comes from one letter suggesting the idea:

http://www.barbudaful.net/historical-notes.html

The origin of the slave breeding controversy stems from this period. Codrington, in correspondence with his manager, suggested that the island should become a nursery for negroes to make Barbuda more profitable. The intention being that Barbuda could become the supplier of slaves for resale to other Caribbean islands. Lowenthal and Clark (1977) calculated that 172 slaves were exported from 1779 to 1834.

Barbuda was set up as a provision store for other islands – and as a place where slaves rested after being brought from Africa. Given there were about 500 slaves on the island, I don’t see that as a huge number being sent elsewhere. Especially if there were new ones coming from elsewhere. Not good evidence is it?

TimJ

Up to a point, Lord Copper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tredegar_Iron_Works

I am sure such cases exist. V-2s were built with slave labour after all. But that does not mean they were common. Consider the evidence that page relies on:

Tredegar both hired slaves and bought them outright, with the number of slaves employed in the metalworking industry in Richmond increasing by more than forty percent from 1840 to 1850. The bondsmen lived in tenements within the perimeter of the plant and were provided food and a company hospital. Their usual working day was ten hours, although they were permitted to work overtime to earn up to fifty cents per month. By 1861, Tredegar employed 900 workers, half slaves, to conduct more than one million dollars worth of business annually.

So already he is not treating slaves as slaves. They are paid. White workers struck and he replaced them with more slaves. What happened?

All was not well, however. While the use of slaves helped Anderson “control strikes . . . and provided some limited opportunity to reduce labor costs,” it did not make up for the growing price of iron. Poor workmanship and low quality iron contributed to Tredegar’s difficulties. It seemed that with every new improvement, something else went wrong. For example, in 1861, Tredegar began producing a new, rapid fire, breechloading gun designed to fire eighteen to twenty shots per minute. This highly marketable item would have seen much success if, after excessive firing, there was not a failure in the relocking mechanism.

Slaves, as I said, have few incentives and every reason to throw a brick in the works. Or in this case, do a half arsed job of puddling the steel and making poor quality gun parts. I think this is evidence supporting my position, don’t you?

125. So Much For Subtlety

105. Spike1138

So, if you own your workers and they can’t leave to go and work for someone else or get a better job or just quit, the people who purchased that labour force with their capital investment have made a financial commitment to specific individuals within their workforce.

No one denies it. So what?

If the individual people who make up your labour force are your personal property, it makes good business sense to keep them (somewhat) healthy and (somewhat) well-fed, in order to maximise the return on your investment by getting them back on their feet and back to work as soon as possible.

Well it can. It doesn’t always. After all, if it paid to spend a lot of money on a slave, you may as well free him and hire someone. Which is why slave societies consume slaves. They almost never reproduce themselves. They rely on new captures. The exception is the US. Even in the Caribbean, assuming slave owners knew what they were doing, slaves were worked to death fairly quickly.

If one of them drops dead, or had a hernia and can’t lift anymore, or keeps cancelling shifts because the babysitter let her down, no biggie, just swap them for another interchangable desperate, smelly peasant. And since they might leave at any time to squeeze out more dole scum kids, why waste time training them up or giving them skills?

Indeed. And yet those smelly peasants, as you put it, are so vastly better off than the slaves there is no comparison. They can quit for one thing.

Buying someone involves acquiring an asset. Unlike an employee, a slave is a tradeable commodity and has a value for as long as they live from the moment you buy them, even perhaps before you even see them. The risk is far, far lower.

But it isn’t. People co-operate with their employers. They rarely do with their owners. Slaves must be supervised – which is why they tend to be restricted to crops like sugar. And when they have skills they usually negotiate some form of quit rent rather than working for nothing. Slaves also run away, kill themselves, get sick for no reason and so on. Without a constant supply of cheap new slaves, usually captured in war, slavery is inevitably replaced by free labour. The one exception being the US.

But that person has no firm commitment to work for you or provide a given level or productivity, so why commit more to them as a person than you have to? That’s bad business sense.

We get around that by short term compulsion through apprenticeships.

under Workfare, Tescos and other employers have no commitment and no loyalty and no obligations or liabilities to the people labouring to make their businesses run for no wages, so from an business respect, not only do they not care if you live or die, it doesn’t even cost them anything to replace you.

Well good. We don’t really want Tesco to own people. We want people to be free to pick up and move as they see fit. I don’t see the problem. The point is that the limited skills Tesco is teaching are worth more than the big pile of nothing they learn on the dole.

I was comparing and highlighting the contrast between the interest (and willingness to fork out cash) that a slaveholder would have in ensuring that his workers had healthy teeth (there’s a good business case for spending the money, and many -but not all- did), with the interest that large, multinational employer has in ensuring the same thing for it’s minimum wage employees (absolute zero) and commenting on the irony.

Many in the US did. After the slave trade was banned. But then multinationals do have an interest in their employees having skills. They may recognise that if they train them up they will leave. But companies and business leaders are the most effective critics of the State school system in Britain. Most reform plans involve getting them to co-operate with the Polys to produce the skills we need.

And so they bloody well should. I do too, as do you (I assume).

Well if the system worked they should. If it just makes things worse, no.

I don’t expect 56 year old unemployed grandfathers to work 40 hours a week for me, 6 weeks straight, doing fairly strenuous physical labour for no money and nothing in return, whilst verbally abusing and humiliating him and threatening to report his lip and bad attitude back to DWP and get his benefits cut.

Why not? Better for them than staying at home.

I also don’t try to ruin businesses and individuals who have taken a conscious decision not to supply to me by systematically undercutting their business.

And yet we all benefit when they do.

What do think they should get in return for such generousity? A cookie? A pat on the back? A full, company-wide UK tax audit accompanied by a full public enquiry by the land registry to find out what else they stole and took that wasn’t theirs, or how else they’ve been taking the piss for years?

They should get an acknowledgement from you of what they do.

Do you actually expect us to be thankful that they’ve merely been bolstering their workforce and increasing their profit margins by staffing their shittest store rotas with desperate, vulnerable long-term unemployed people, bullying them and exploiting their fear of having their benefits cut and eagerness to work and just not paying them

Yes. Of course. Why not?

as opposed to locking them in chains, whipping them for slowing down or getting “saucy” with their aisle supervisor, forcing them to sleep on the premises and leaving them at the mercy of the perverted sadist with the lazy eye who runs the cheese counter on the Tuesday day shift?

No. But then the comparison is, as I said, batsh!t crazy. I did not make it. You did.

126. So Much For Subtlety

114. Spike1138

None of which detracts in any way from the validity of my original point, which was “purely as an asset, slaves were bloody expensive the last time there was a widely accessible market for buying people to work for you, and therefore very valuable to the people who profited by their labour”, which I notice you have not attempted to rebutt, since it’s fairly clear and obvious that was the case from the knowledge you and I (and anyone else who has looked into the subject, or who’s figured it out themselves via logic) have available.

No I have not tried to rebut it. There is a lot of work saying as much. Except I would say that you have it the wrong way around – it is because their owners could make a great deal of money out of them that they were valuable.

Not much gin to be had when you’re anchored on station off the coast of Jamaica though, is there? Given that Juniper berries grow best in Northern and Central Europe. That would have meant schlepping across the third largest body of the water in the world with barrels of the stuff. Hardly worth it just for the sake of a Martini.

Nor a lot of rum off Spithead either. Or Scapa Flow. And yet rumour has it they got their rum anyway.

Besides, as you know doubt know full well, the Navy weren’t given rum, they were given grog, which is watered down and so 12 gallons would go a long way.

That is kind of beside the point isn’t it? They could have watered their gin.

Many of the local tribes, communities or North African corsairs were either Muslim, had no cultural knowledge or awareness of alcohol, fermentation or distillation process.

Alcohol is self-evidently an Arabic word. I believe they invented distillation too.

But demand was still enormous and the traders were making too much money, in some cases just landing their human cargo in Spanish Florida, Mexico or Texas (not yet part of the Union) and just walking them over the border.

Sure people still smuggled slaves into the US. But that is not the point. The illegal part was crossing the US border. Not the buying in Africa or the sailing across the Atlantic. The expensive part would have gone to the smugglers.

The 1807 Slave Trade Act made trading in slaves illegal everywhere in the British Empire (apart from a couple of exceptions), at which point it was made clear that the Royal Navy would board any ships suspected to be carrying slaves, confiscate the slaves, free them, and clap the crew in irons until and unless they were able to pay the fine of £100 for every slave they were caught carrying.</i.

Any ships not involved in the Spanish and Portuguese/Brazilian trade. Although the British government worked steadily to reduce that and eventually started stopping them too.

(something Ron Paul and a fair few other Libertarian / PaleoConservative still insist could have been done with the remaining American slaves instead of having a Civil War, although where they would have found the $500Bn it would have cost in 1860 is anyone’s guess).

Bet it would have been cheaper than the war.

In short, the penalties were massive and the odds of getting caught, fined a King’s Ransom and loosing ownership of your vessel were very, very high indeed. Flying a Portuguese flag and claiming to be bound for Rio would not get you let off.

Yes it would. Up to a certain point. I would have to check the date but it is some times in the 1830-40s. The British did not stop Portuguese ships. Nor did they seize those slaves. Even American ships with legitimate Spanish colonial papers were not stopped.

Well, you’d have to be *fairly* mad to purchase, take ownership of, shackle, enslave and kidnap another human being, particularly a child. Not to mention, utterly cut off and isolated from your own basic humanity by your own gargantuan, obscenely corpulent avaricious lust for material wealth and self-enrichment to even consider it as an option in the first place. And that’s before you even get on to worrying over the risk of being hung for doing so.

Well no. Come on, think for a moment. Millions of people throughout thousands of years of human history have not had a problem with slavery. You don’t have to be nuts to do it. You have to be normal. Because normal people did it. We would have to be nuts because in our society it is abnormal, but we are the odd ones out. The alternative for war prisoners was usually killing them. You don’t have to be much of a bastard to think working people as slaves was better than killing them. Indeed people admire Oscar Schindler for thinking just that.

The captives were not traded at the Congo end for currency, they were bartered. For the African traders doing the bartering, they were bartering to obtain something scarse a highly valuable to them which were not easy to get hold of, in exchange for something (sorry, someone – went a bit Tescos, there) the slave crew knows will make them big dollars at the other end.

Sure. But it is still an open market and a market conducted in rum is still one which costs people. Lots of people could enter the trade and so you would expect costs to trend to the mean. I doubt slave traders made super profits.

Jamaican rum is plentiful and abundant in Jamaica. In Africa, it’s rarer than hen’s teeth and everybody wants it.

Sorry but how do you know this? Anyone can carry rum to Africa. The costs would equalise once transport was taken into account.

The Cotton Barons didn’t want Cuban or Haitian second hand slaves, they wanted fresh, strong African slaves or none at all, and were prepared to pay for (as they saw it) the premium.

I have no idea what you’ve been reading but this level of ignorance is really annoying. Yes, the Brazilians et al worked their slaves to death fairly quickly. But on the other hand, new arrivals had a massive death rate – maybe a third or more. They were unused to the conditions. They were disinclined to do the work. They got diseases they were not immune to. They died. There was no such thing as a fresh strong African slave. There were rebellious people who had to be introduced into a system they did not like and were not used to.

You’re arguing an unpopular, boldly pro-big business on a firmly left-of-centre message board down amongst a great many socialist co-contributors; do you actually know how Capitalism works?

For the reasons you state, I often feel the only one.

Elephants carry their young for over two years and only ever have one calf per birth. Leaving aside the fact that that’s a full two and a half times longer than human mothers (assuming full term), you know as well as I do that human females can carry a child to full term from the age of 13 or younger

So they carry longer than humans – they work harder too. Elephant females also have babies at 13 or so. So what?

and are capable of doing so potentially every year for the next 35 years or more.

Elephants even longer. So what? You continue to miss the point – you have to pay for those long years when children and baby elephants do not work. It is not cost effective. Most people do not bother. They prefer to import new ones captured by violence.

You’re entirely proving my original point; if you don’t pay a living wage, people will surrender their freedom because they can’t afford to live or feed themselves.

I don’t know Africans surrendered their freedom, but I will let it pass.

If they can’t afford to feed their child, children will be abandoned on doorsteps, in front of hospitals or in the middle of the street. Or sell their children to wealthy, childless couples. There are reports that it’s already beginning to happen in Greece, things have become so bad there.

I am not sure how this is helping your case. The cost of free labour tends towards the cost of raising two children. Lasalle’s Iron Law of Wages. If you are spending so much on your slaves that they are raising two children, it is no longer cost effective, in most cases, to do so. You may as well hire free men.

And Greece’s problem is not caused by poverty because they are not there yet. The same sort of underclass as we have perhaps.

If you’re a slaveholder, you want your relatively unproductive (sorry any ladies present, their opinion, not my own, obviously) female slaves to make you some new slaves. As many as possible, as strong and healthy as possible and the more the merrier.

No you do not. You want profits now. Which usually mean sending the woman out to work as soon as possible for as long as possible. If you can buy a new slave cheaper than it costs to raise a child, you do not encourage pregnancies. As in most of the Caribbean and Brazil. Where populations did not reproduce themselves. If there are no more cheap slaves, then perhaps it will pay to encourage more children – but if it costs so much as to allow your slave to have two surviving children, you’re better off with free labour. Slave owners often talk and think about reproduction, but the economics rarely work out.

No, that’s Luddites, not slaves.

It is like teaching High School. It really is.

If a slave breaks a machine or even if the machine breaks down on it’s own, the slave operating it will be thrashed to within an inch of his or her life. The slave would live in mortal dread of the machine ever breaking down.

All evidence to the contrary. It just means slaves have to be smart and not make it look too obvious. Not that they wouldn’t do it. Slave masters cannot be every where and cannot check everything. They cannot flog everyone either.

It’s unusual under chattel slavery, I grant you, but far from unheard of. If you expand the definition just slightly to include indentured servitude, I’m ready to take the tour of the iPad factory in Nianjing whenever you say the word.

There is an iPad factory in Nianjing? As it happens I am planning on going to dinner with a pretty woman who used to work in such a factory. By all means, you can come too and tell her how she was indentured.

Pretty substantial exception though, really. Especially since it was the largest, most ecconomically significant and expansive slave society in all human history and also the only one adminstered under capitalist principles.

It was hardly the largest, nor even the most economically significant although you would have to define significant. And expansive? Compared to what?

And you ignore the fact that the Romans regularly initiated and *started* wars on a pretext with the specific aim of acquiring large numbers slaves in the process.

Hard to prove the pretext was a pretext and that their specific aim was really there.

Let me put it this way for you : – People like Oxfam. More than like Tesco. A lot of people think Oxfam’re really good. Not so many people say that about Tesco.

I am not sure that is true. Oxfam has better PR. But even if it was, Oxfam is obviously worse for the world than Tesco. And we vote with our pounds for Tesco, not Oxfam.

127. So Much For Subtlety

115. Spike1138

Here’s an interesting question from the point of view of macroeconomics – if Margaret Thatcher could have enslaved Arthur Scargill and the NUM in 1984-85 (I’m sure the thought did cross her mind) – would we still have a coal mining industry?

No, it is not economic. However we did run coal mines with slave labour from 1943 to 1948:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevin_boys

Eric Morecambe was one of them oddly enough.

Richard W

Slave labour was used in some manufacturing in the Upper South and port cities. Industrial sabotage may have been a marginal factor, however, the main reason industrial slaves were not used is because the South did not have much mass production industry anyway. They were an agrarian economy producing agricultural commodities for export.

Yes but horse or cart?

Moreover, the agriculture was not undergoing mechanisation like the rest of the country. Mechanisation obviously requires the development of an industry making the capital goods tools for use in agriculture. The existence of slave labour meant such industries did not evolve in the South because there was no pressure to mechanise.

I am not sure that the evidence bears that out. Slave labour on plantations was capital intensive. Hugely so. And by and large fairly well mechanised. Slave labour does not cause plantations to ignore all forms of technology and investment – look at the sugar cane industry. The first railway in Cuba was laid down to carry sugar cane to the mills. They did so a decade before Spain built its first line.

Furthermore, mass industrial production requires a mass consumer market to buy consumption goods. However, the South was predominately a top-heavy economy in terms of income with agricultural oligarchs accruing most of the value generated. With slaves receiving no wages and often making their own tools and clothes.

Slaves still consumed. I am not happy with the claim that the South was predominantly heavy with large oligarchs. Got a source? Not true for tobacco where the average plantation was something like four slaves. Such small scale owners were common in all parts of the South. But the point is surely that they could have exported – someone consumed their cotton and tobacco. It wasn’t their own slaves I agree.

Robin Levett

Cite. Remember that the last cite you produced for this claim had Mandela denying point-blank that he was a terrorist; and claiming that quite apart from his moral objections, terrorism was counterproductive.

The last source I provided showed Mandela using an odd definition of terrorism. No more. By any reasonable standard, what he tried to do, what he boasted of doing, was terrorism. For which he was convicted.

I note however that your claim of Mandela being a communist has been downgraded to “probably”; you may be catching onto the idea of evidence after all.

I assume it was always a probably. But highly likely. Either way, his cult of personality is not due to anything he did, so much as White liberal guilt.

@126

No, it is not economic. However we did run coal mines with slave labour from 1943 to 1948.

Right, finally you’ve conceeded my original point. You’ve pointed to an unwaged government work placement scheme in the mainland UK in the modern era where commercial production Labour was undertaken on the premises of a private firm under the compulsion of the state, something which constitutes (in your exact words) “slave labour”.

You couldn’t have picked a better example.

The pits weren’t nationalised and put under the NCB until after the war, they were all still in private hands.

The Bevin Boys were (largely) conscripted, they did not go willingly and had no opportunity to leave. They were compelled by the government to carry out commerical labour on private land. They were also (assuming you stand by your original description) unwaged.

How is that different to Workfare?

129. So Much For Subtlety

128. Spike1138

Right, finally you’ve conceeded my original point. You’ve pointed to an unwaged government work placement scheme in the mainland UK in the modern era where commercial production Labour was undertaken on the premises of a private firm under the compulsion of the state, something which constitutes (in your exact words) “slave labour”.

I don’t think I have. It was not unwaged. Nor is the Tesco’s scheme. It was poor wages, but that does not make it slave labour. The compulsion does. Was it a private firm in WW2?

The pits weren’t nationalised and put under the NCB until after the war, they were all still in private hands.

But they were run by and for the government, not the owners.

How is that different to Workfare?

People on Workfare are not compelled. They do not have to take part. Thus they are not slave labour. Unlike Ernie’s boys.

130. Robin Levett

@SMFS #126:

The last source I provided showed Mandela using an odd definition of terrorism. No more. By any reasonable standard, what he tried to do, what he boasted of doing, was terrorism.

OK; make your definition explicit,and let’s see whether it equates to a reasonable definition. Most reasonable people, remember, would differentiate between guerilla warfare and terrorism.

For which he was convicted.

Nope; he was not convicted of terrorism at the Rivonia trial.

I assume [Mandela being a communist] was always a probably. But highly likely.

Oh, dear; back to problems with evidence. Some evidence that he was a communist, please?

@128

It was not unwaged.

I didn’t think that it would be, given that workers were recruited via conscription and conscripted soldiers and sailors were paid for their service; zero wages is not a perfect match for defining what is and isn’t a state of slavery or not, since you can have debt slavery, serfdom and other forms, several of which involve the payment of some currency to the labourer at the level of a pittance.

At a basic level, if you are forced to do a job on behalf of someone else and you are not allowed to leave that job, even subjected to punishments if you try to leave or refuse to carry out work when instructed to do so, that is enslavement in one shape or form.

But I didn’t describe the Bevan Boys as a form of slave labour. I never even mentioned them. You went out of your way to cite the example, highlight it and describe it as slave labour and now you’re desperately trying to backpeddle.

Nor is the Tesco’s scheme.

Sorry if this sounds repetitively or comes across as contrary just for the sake of it, but – Yes it is.

It absolutely is.

Tescos pay no wages, they pay expenses. Participants in the scheme are not being paid in recognition of their their labour or their attendance, merely reimbursed for the cost they incurred in daily subsistence by getting there and back each day.

Presuming that the Jobseekers/Workfarers/The Help involved can and are able to produce evidenciary proof to support their expense claim after the fact; but you know how accounts payable and payroll departments usually are – they tend to adopt a fairly snide and truculent attitude to being presented with a collection of used bus tickets as proof of a part of a claim and dig their heels in to be diffucult.

Ever tried asking a bus driver picking you up in the rush hour if he’s mind giving you a VAT receipt for your fare?

It was poor wages, but that does not make it slave labour.

Again, lack of wages is *a* key signifier of many kinds of slave labour or related forms of indentured servitude, but neither the main, nor the only one. Offering purposefully below subsistence-level salaries neccessary for independent survival is another form, whereby the labourer works in service of their debt and at the employer’s pleasure and descretion.

But Tescos here (along with the other firms) are NOT paying wages, not poor ones, not any ones.

If the payments being made (in this case, the person’s ongoing JSA payments and any meager expense claim they are able to get Tescos to agree to reimburse) were to be described or understood to be payment made in recognition for work undertaken (i.e., wages) that would be totally illegal, since if you pay someone a wage, it MUST be at or above the statutory minimum wage (which it works out to be well below, given a 40 hr week, which is a reasonably common figure banded about by people who have been on the scheme), and if you are going to employ someone and either pay them a wage or treat them as an outside freelancer, you have to provide a written contract in writing and you have to comply with employment law and respect the rights that your workers have in your dealings with them and your responsibilities in respect of supporting their service to you.

Which brings me back to my original point – Tescos and any of the other Workfare firms provides absolutely not protection, guarantees or commitments to the individuals who labour for them, while under American slavery (the model I selected to contrast for the purposes of this exercise, so don’t split hairs), the slaveholder was undertaking a minimum level of commitment to his workforce in the form of dirty, tattered, hand-me-down clothes, regular and sustaining (if bland and monotonous) and childcare for working mothers in your service and basic healthcare provision for your workers – all things in no way provided by Workfare participating organsiations, who don’t even need to make that minimal commitment to their labour force.

Incidentally, you keep insisting that to have women of child-rearing age and capacity in a slave society was a liability rather than a potentially lucrative profit centre for the businesses that owned slaves, and there was no proof that slaveholders were indifferent at best to slaves siring children while in service and took no steps ever to encourage it… What planet are you living on?

In a slave workforce, being a stay-at-home mum was not an option. As soon as you were back on your feet again, you were back in the fields, working.

Two words: wet-nursing. You know the old racist cliche of a homely, good natured “Mammy” slave lady? You know why there were so many “Mammy”s? Because usually that one woman, usually chosen on the basis of her percieved fertility, was more often not responsible for breast-feeding several dozen infant slaves children other than her own, while the real mothers were straight back to the fields within days or week.

They didn’t give slaves maternity leave. And since we’ve already established that following the 1833 Act, every healthy slave or captive with a current or future labour potential had a market-rate actual dollar value running into certainly the hundreds, often the low $4figures range, you delegate the task of developing and maintaining the health of those capital assets to one or two specialist members of your workforce who show an aptitude for child-rearing duties – wet nurses.

The compulsion does.

Workfare is described by DWP’s own rules and guidelines as a “Mandatory Work Activity” – certainly not lacking for clarity or burdened by their usual characteristically euphemistic sub-Management Consultancy jargon NLP-derived waffle.

“Mandatory” quite clearly indicates you have no choice in the matter but to submit or comply. If the compulsion you say makes the case and the signifier in your view for mandatory, unpaid labour imposed by means of ecconomic coercion to be described as “slave labour” (again, you chose the term), the case is clearly made for you.

And again, these are not “low wages”, they are NO wages – you can plead innocence on the basis of a technicality by saying that the “mandatory” aspect is attendance on a scheme offering “work experience” – but “work experience” is generally understood to be experiencing what it is like to work in particular jobs or particular sectors and industries by shadowing people who are currently doing those jobs for pay.

I did work experience at school, as do most people. And I can tell you, doing work experience is something fundamentally different in character to actually working in the place – in my case, that’s probably a really good thing, since I don’t know how to operate any of the X-Ray machines or fMRI scanners they had in the department, nor did I really expect them to let me try.

You’re supposed to be experiencing work by watching and observing the people who currently do those jobs, not experience work by actually doing the work for them, without being paid. The two things are completely different, just in the same way that the primary commercial activity of most service mechanics is not intended to be making endless cups of tea for everyone else who works in the garage and spending most of the rest of the time following the other mechanics around, watching what they’re doing as they work (although I’m sure for a few mechanics, this may well all be true – it’s just not what they’re paid to do).

Was it a private firm in WW2?

Yes it was. All coal production was and remained in private hands until 1947. The government nationalised the already-mined out coal reserves in 1942, but the pits were and remained commerical, for-profit ventures supplying to the government as their sole customer. They may have been working closely in partnership with Whitehall, Downing Street and GCHQ under their strict direction, but they were no more owned by the state than Vickers, Rolls-Royce, Hawker, Heinz baked beans or the Fry’s chocolate factory for that matter.

You keep insisting somehow that being paid JSA and your expenses whilst on a Workfare placement constitutes “low wages”, rather than no wages – that’s so fundamentally wrong and dangerously misleading in so many different sense, many of which I’ve already touched on, but here’s another crucial one I haven’t mentioned yet – even if I grant you the assertion on your part that JSA payments made during a Workfare placement constitute payment for those services rendered, on the basis that your JSA can be stopped if you decline the request to participate in the scheme, leave early or are asked to leave, that’s not a reward you receive for working for the firm. If you’re already receiving a benefit you’re entitled to, how is it you can claim that they’re paying you a wage to work there, as a reward for doing so?

You’re not receiving any additional benefit, financial or otherwise, by working there. They are not offering to reward you by offering additional support, entitlements or benefits, they are applying pressure on you, trying to coerce you into participating in Workfare by threatening to remove existing benefits you are already currently entitled to.

I don’t call any JSA claim payments made after that point “wages”; I call that “money that person was entitled to before that you’re threatening to take away”. I call that coercion. I call that blackmail. I call that exploitation and I call that bullying.

And yet you glibly repeat the mantra that Workfare participants can leave whenever they like. Yeah. If they don’t mind having their JSA claim terminated and all future claims blocked or held up. If they don’t mind letting their children go hungry beacause they can’t put food on the table or pay to keep the heating on all winter and stop the electric getting cut of.

Completely free choice there. But you’re right, they do have it.

@125

I have no idea what you’ve been reading but this level of ignorance is really annoying. Yes, the Brazilians et al worked their slaves to death fairly quickly. But on the other hand, new arrivals had a massive death rate – maybe a third or more. They were unused to the conditions. They were disinclined to do the work. They got diseases they were not immune to. They died. There was no such thing as a fresh strong African slave. There were rebellious people who had to be introduced into a system they did not like and were not used to.

All that proves is that American slaveholding free-market capitalists were better and more efficient businessmen when it came to maximising the return on their investment and turning a handsome profit than Spanish or Portuguese imperialist forces.

Americans entrepreneurs are better at business than Spanish nobility.
Who knew?

I realise your debating style relies very much on saying things like “I’m not sure that’s true”, or “I don’t see the evidence for it” or “Compared to what?” or “How do you know?”, challenging others to provide sources, whilst being cagey about providing your own.

Whilst it might be mildly satisfying to go back and give you a full bibliography of citations for all my claims, it’s a monumental task and I’ll probably be dead or insane before I get halfway through, so let’s just exchange core texts and compare notes afterwards.

My main source for most things is this:-

http://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/civil-war-reconstruction-era/id341650730

It’s a complete, 27 part lecture series on the history of American slavery, given by Professor David Blight, winner of both the Lincoln Prize and the Frederick Douglass prize and director of the Gilder-Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition at Yale University.

He’s my main source for most of the claims and assertions that I’ve made about American slavery and the transatlantic triangle trade, mostly from the second and third lectures, wherein he explains and relates in some detail how Southern slave ecconomy and society actually functioned, became so enormously profitable and why it endured for so long and became such an enormous threat to free, unskilled labour both in the South and in the North.

He’s also got a marvelous speaking voice, so I’ve ended up listening to his lecture series several times over the last month because I find it really easy to engage with the subject the way he goes about laying out the landscape of the topic

That’s also true of my main source for any claims I’ve made about Roman slavery. In as much as I’ve made any claims about it at all, Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast is incredibly helpful, specifically this episode:-

http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=product_music_info&cPath=1&products_id=174

I also strongly urge you to read Women, Race and Class by Angela Davis and The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family by Annette Gordon-Reed, which won the 2009 Pulitzer prize for History and the Frederick Douglass Prize for that year too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QA24_T189U
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94828368I

I know relatively little about Brazilian slavery, but I’d be very interest to learn more, so please feel free to point me in the direction of any decent works on it you can recommend, I’d be eager to take a good look through them.

Hopefully then, I’ll be able to know as much about the subject as you currently do. That will then allow me to continue to point out why you’re wrong, only with better information to back me up.

133. So Much For Subtlety

131. Spike1138

I didn’t think that it would be, given that workers were recruited via conscription and conscripted soldiers and sailors were paid for their service; zero wages is not a perfect match for defining what is and isn’t a state of slavery or not, since you can have debt slavery, serfdom and other forms, several of which involve the payment of some currency to the labourer at the level of a pittance.

Your sentence is not clear here. You claimed it was not waged. I pointed out it was. We seem to agree it was. I am not sure serfdom itself involved any money changing hands. Nor debt slavery. But no matter, we call those things some other name as a general rule. And we probably agree, as I said, we used what amounted to slave labour down the coal mines.

At a basic level, if you are forced to do a job on behalf of someone else and you are not allowed to leave that job, even subjected to punishments if you try to leave or refuse to carry out work when instructed to do so, that is enslavement in one shape or form.

Indeed. Which makes Ernie’s great scheme slavery of a sort. As with many socialist ideas.

But I didn’t describe the Bevan Boys as a form of slave labour. I never even mentioned them. You went out of your way to cite the example, highlight it and describe it as slave labour and now you’re desperately trying to backpeddle.

Reading comprehension problems again. I am not backpeddling. I am pointing out where you are factually wrong.

It absolutely is.

Tescos pay no wages, they pay expenses. Participants in the scheme are not being paid in recognition of their their labour or their attendance, merely reimbursed for the cost they incurred in daily subsistence by getting there and back each day.

No it isn’t. They pay the JSA plus expenses. Not slavery.

Again, lack of wages is *a* key signifier of many kinds of slave labour or related forms of indentured servitude, but neither the main, nor the only one. Offering purposefully below subsistence-level salaries neccessary for independent survival is another form, whereby the labourer works in service of their debt and at the employer’s pleasure and descretion.

Children and in the old days women were often paid below subsistence-level wages. Even I can remember those days. Because they had other people to support them. It is not a form of slavery because the offer of wages is not what determines the wage. It is a process of negotiation in a free market. Or any sort of market. You don’t have to accept it unless, of course, that is what your labour is worth.

Which brings me back to my original point – Tescos and any of the other Workfare firms provides absolutely not protection, guarantees or commitments to the individuals who labour for them, while under American slavery (the model I selected to contrast for the purposes of this exercise, so don’t split hairs), the slaveholder was undertaking a minimum level of commitment to his workforce in the form of dirty, tattered, hand-me-down clothes, regular and sustaining (if bland and monotonous) and childcare for working mothers in your service and basic healthcare provision for your workers – all things in no way provided by Workfare participating organsiations, who don’t even need to make that minimal commitment to their labour force.

And I will continue to point out that Tesco in fact pays for those things. Through the tax system. If they didn’t, they would have to pay for those things directly. As in America. Where jobs come with health insurance. They also provide a whole range of protections. Health and safety for instance. Somewhat lacking in slavery. Bodily integrity as well. Also lacking in slavery. If you can’t see how stupid it is to compare people who can flog you, kill you and sell your children far away so you never see them again with Tesco’s, it is kind of pointless.

Incidentally, you keep insisting that to have women of child-rearing age and capacity in a slave society was a liability rather than a potentially lucrative profit centre for the businesses that owned slaves, and there was no proof that slaveholders were indifferent at best to slaves siring children while in service and took no steps ever to encourage it… What planet are you living on?

I have never said they took no steps to encourage it. I said there was no slave breeding. Nor have I said that having women of child-rearing age was a liability. Obviously in Asia and the Muslim world generally, such women were in great demand. Having children with other slaves was usually a liability. A different claim there.

In a slave workforce, being a stay-at-home mum was not an option. As soon as you were back on your feet again, you were back in the fields, working.

And thus your baby died.

Two words: wet-nursing. You know the old racist cliche of a homely, good natured “Mammy” slave lady? You know why there were so many “Mammy”s? Because usually that one woman, usually chosen on the basis of her percieved fertility, was more often not responsible for breast-feeding several dozen infant slaves children other than her own, while the real mothers were straight back to the fields within days or week.

I will give you money few women ever breast fed even a dozen babies at one time. The Mammy was a Black woman who raised her owner’s White children. Not other Black children. Yes, they did make minimal efforts at child care. But except in the South, such efforts were uniformly unsuccessful. Every other slave society we know of worked slaves to death without surviving children.

Workfare is described by DWP’s own rules and guidelines as a “Mandatory Work Activity” – certainly not lacking for clarity or burdened by their usual characteristically euphemistic sub-Management Consultancy jargon NLP-derived waffle.

Except it is. Because it is not mandatory. If you want to refuse, unlike Bevin’s boys, you can. If you get a job elsewhere, you can leave. If you simply want to leave, you can leave. You won’t even necessarily lose your JSA if you know how to play the system properly.

Yes it was. All coal production was and remained in private hands until 1947. The government nationalised the already-mined out coal reserves in 1942, but the pits were and remained commerical, for-profit ventures supplying to the government as their sole customer. They may have been working closely in partnership with Whitehall, Downing Street and GCHQ under their strict direction, but they were no more owned by the state than Vickers, Rolls-Royce, Hawker, Heinz baked beans or the Fry’s chocolate factory for that matter.

Yes. Well yes and no. If the State directs your efforts, if they control every single aspect of what you do – from who you hire and fire, from what you dig and how much, if they set the price you buy and sell, if you are told who to sell to, it is possible to consider this private ownership but then again it isn’t. It is a little more complicated than that.

You keep insisting somehow that being paid JSA and your expenses whilst on a Workfare placement constitutes “low wages”, rather than no wages – that’s so fundamentally wrong and dangerously misleading in so many different sense, many of which I’ve already touched on

I have not seen you touch on one. You simply deny it. Even though now you admit it. At the end of the week these people have money in their pocket. That is a wage. They are paid.

If you’re already receiving a benefit you’re entitled to, how is it you can claim that they’re paying you a wage to work there, as a reward for doing so?

They are not entitled to it for doing nothing. Other people are, but these people are not. They are also learning skills and gaining experience. I am not claiming much except the obvious – these people are being paid.

I don’t call any JSA claim payments made after that point “wages”; I call that “money that person was entitled to before that you’re threatening to take away”. I call that coercion. I call that blackmail. I call that exploitation and I call that bullying.

You can call it what you like. It will not become so.

And yet you glibly repeat the mantra that Workfare participants can leave whenever they like. Yeah. If they don’t mind having their JSA claim terminated and all future claims blocked or held up. If they don’t mind letting their children go hungry beacause they can’t put food on the table or pay to keep the heating on all winter and stop the electric getting cut of.

Yes, exactly. Just as I can quit my job any time I like. That does not make me a slave either. Welcome to the real world. We have a lot of former slaves who were freed by Lincoln and then experienced the harsh world of freedom until they were interviewed by people during the Great Depression. Oddly enough while they sometimes miss their former life, and they often admit that life was tougher once they were free, the majority had no desire to return to the plantation. They preferred freedom, even at the risk of starvation to slavery. I guess that is the main difference here – a lot of British people are institutionalised like some slaves were. They could not even conceive of being free. They expected someone else to look after them. But free they became. Free they should have been.

134. Robin Levett

@SMFS #133:

Indeed. Which makes Ernie’s great scheme slavery of a sort. As with many socialist ideas.

So conscription is a socialist idea – who knew? The Qin Dynasty certainly didn’t.

@132

Here we go again… Seconds out, Round 11.

You claimed it was not waged.  I pointed out it was.  We seem to agree it was.  I am not sure serfdom itself involved any money changing hands.  Nor debt slavery.

What you get paid on Workfare is not a wage. It’s a benefit you are already entitled to for reasons unrelated to the scheme, which can be taken away if you don’t participate in it.

It actually places an additional hindrance and constraint on a recepient’s ability to improve their own situation and get off benefit and pay their own way, which is perverse.

You are entitled to receive that benefit to support yourself and your family if you are not in paid employment and actively seeking a new job.

How can you be expected to be job hunting full-time if you’re required to work up to 40 hours a week or more for Tescos or another scheme participant? We already know that Workfare placements rarely translate into participants being hired by the firm they are seconded to, so the expectation is that you will be still under taking an active, full-time intensive job search, filling out applications and attending selection centres and interviews at the same time as completing a full working week. Add family commitments, childcare, plus time for eating and sleeping and there aren’t enough hours in the day.

Sure, it’s *possible* to juggle all those commitments successfully at the same time, provided you’re an exceptionally organised person, able to manage your time and multi-task effectively under tight time constraints, but most people, particularly those who have been out of work for long enough to qualify for a Workfare placement will struggle to do so and most won’t be able to do it.

It’s not impossible, but it’s also not reasonable.

You effectively force most people to put their job search on hold for the duration of the placement, which is entirely contrary to the original intent and reasoning behind having the scheme in the first place; it actually makes it *harder* for people on it to look for and find work.

Also, consider this; you are entitled to Job Seekers Allowance if you are not in paid employment or working below a minimum number of hours a week. Otherwise, if your weekly wages are below a certain level, you qualify instead for Income Support.

What you’re claiming is a logical fallacy; you claim that Workfare is paid work… Well, if it’s paid work, and it’s more than 14hrs a week, that would disqualify you from receiving JSA for the duration of the placement. Which it doesn’t. You still receive JSA, so it can’t be paid work.

If you want to play around with semantics, let’s look at it this way; it might be paid or unpaid, but is it waged or unwaged? Well, accordingly,

wage? ?[weyj] Show IPA ,noun, verb, waged, wag·ing.
noun
1.
Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. Compare living wage, minimum wage.

You continue to receive JSA while participating in Workfare, and you would have been in receipt of it prior to doing so as well. The money therefore cannot be in recognition of work or services undertaken for Tescos or any other firm. JSA is not a wage and never could be under any definition. It’s a benefit paid to those NOT in paid work in exchange for actively seeking paid work, which is expected to be their primary activity. And, as I pointed out earlier, that can’t be the case if they’re working for free for somebody else for much of the time.

Not to mention, wages are subject to Income Tax. JSA is not classed in the same way as income from paid work. Work undertaken under Workfare does not and cannot contribute to the treasury or to National Insurance from either the employer or the employees side, do it isn’t proper employment in any shape or form.

I am not sure serfdom itself involved any money changing hands. Nor debt slavery.

Yes it did. Otherwise, how could a debtor be expected to repay their debt? The answer was that usually couldn’t, and were never intended to, thus they remained in servitude.

Indeed.  Which makes Ernie’s great scheme slavery of a sort.  As with many socialist ideas.

Why, you underhanded Hayekian – you’re not going to get away with backing away from this one by playing around with the semantics. First you say definitively that it was slave labour, even though wages were paid, now you’re saying that it was slavery “of a sort”, even though it shares more traits and aspects in common with Workfare than either American slavery or (your own specialist area) Brazilian slavery.

You originally objected to any comparison whatsoever between the condition of Workfare participants and any form of slavery from history, implying that you found it highly offensive. Now you suggest, weasel-word fashion, that the Bevan’s Boys scheme was slavery “of a sort” and put the blame on socialist ideology. Either you think it is slavery or it isn’t. Either you think that socialist ideas are based on some form of actual, institutionalised slavery or you don’t.

Hayek taught that universal healthcare constitutes an enslavement of individuals and their private wealth and capital, placing them under bonded servitude to the state.

Do you think the Welfare State is founded on principles of institutional bonded servitude or not? It’s a simple question. Yes or no?

No it isn’t.  They pay the JSA plus expenses.  Not slavery.

Tescos don’t pay for the labour that is being done, the treasury is paying for the participants to support themselves whilst undertaking a full-time job-search for paid employment. Those are two completely different activities and always intended to be such.

 It is a process of negotiation in a free market.  Or any sort of market.  You don’t have to accept it unless, of course, that is what your labour is worth.

And in a society where everyone was able to haggle and negotiate over their salary, that idea might be worth taking seriously. But, as any free-marketeer will freely point out though, especially in an under-employed society with abundant unskilled labour and relatively scarse employment opportunities, Minimum Wage restrictions are a major distortion in free markets. They maintain wages artificially low, taking no account of inflation or increases in the real cost of living and employers naturally cluster their entry level opportunities at or close to the lowest common denominator – an extra £1 per hour difference could make the difference of tens of millions across the corporate balance sheet, so why offer more when you don’t have to and staff are cheap and plentiful even in most semi-skilled or non-specialist technical roles?

You don’t have to accept it unless, of course, that is what your labour is worth.

Again, this is just Libertarian claptrap. You’ve been out of work for 12 months solid. Someone offers you a job at minimum wage, the first offer you’ve had in that time and less than half of your last three jobs before the economy collapsed.

What does “not accepting” it look like? Saying no? If you turn down job offers, even if it’s because you think it’s too little to live on, they will eventually cut off your JSA and other benefits as well. That’s not a choice.

And you’re insisting that everyone’s labour has an objective value, which it doesn’t – it’s wholly subjective, if it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be industry standard pay brackets for certain jobs, everyone would be paid according to their own ability and talent, rather than what everyone else doing a similar job was being paid. There also wouldn’t be periodic brain drains in certain professions every few years, the Market would correctly value and reward for instance a civil engineer or a quantity surveyer and they would be paid the same relative salaries all over the world, rather than getting drawn to the gulf or the Far East for salaries four times as high. And nurses would be paid at least as much as qualified accountants with the same level of experience.

And I will continue to point out that Tesco in fact pays for those things.  Through the tax system.  If they didn’t, they would have to pay for those things directly.

You made me chuckle on an earlier post where you said that Tescos deserve my acknowledgement for the contributions they make to the Welfare State by paying all the taxes they’re legally required to (more than some do, I grant you).

I do acknowledge them. I acknowledge anyone who undertakes to do the absolute bare minimum expected or required of them. That’s not doing anything worthy of thanks or gratitude. That’s behaving like a delinquent, absentee father or a deadbeat Dad. And it’s not impressive behaviour. It’s wrong to expect someone to be grateful for you doing something you should be doing without having to be asked.

But it’s a free market, after all. If Tescos don’t like paying UK taxes or paying their staff a living wage or supporting them in other ways beyond the absolute minimum legally required of them, they are welcome to cease trading in the UK and not do business here anymore. I’m sure the Co-Op and Waitrose will easily be able to step in and take on much of their market share and continue to treat their employees better and a little less like cattle as they do so. Plus, they do nicer biscuits.

Assuming that we take as read that that’s unlikely to happen and Tescos are not likely to do, perhaps they might like to put their money where their mouth is and show a little more commitment to long-term thinking and do their bit to help the general economic welfare of the nation that is hosting them (and I do mean hosting them) by using their abundant resources to stabilise the environment they do business in rather than further exhausting the over-worked soil of our society, acting as if they’ve always got one eye on the door, eh? If it wouldn’t be too much trouble….

 If you can’t see how stupid it is to compare people who can flog you, kill you and sell your children far away so you never see them again with Tesco’s, it is kind of pointless.

None of which are exclusive or expected characteristics of ALL forms if slavery, nor for all slaves held in any given slave system. House slaves were rarely flogged and beaten and Turkish Janissaries were never abused physically. Slaves were rarely killed deliberately, since they were each of great value monetary value.

How great? Well, ““I have bought a boy named Isaac,” wrote another trader, “for $1100.00.” He writes this in 1854 to his partner. “Bought a boy named Isaac. I think him very prime. He is a house-servant, first-rate cook, and splendid carriage driver. He is also a fine painter and varnisher, and says he can make a fine panel door. Also, he performs well on the violin. He is a genius. And strange to say, I think he’s smarter than I am.”

Or, “I refused a girl 20-years-old at $700.00 yesterday,” one trader wrote to another in 1853. “If you think best to take her at 700, I can still get her. She is very badly whipped but has good teeth.”

Slaves were capital assets of enormous value. You did not kill your own slaves and if you killed someone else’s you wound up in court being sued for damages.

In 1860, the enslaved population of the United States had a total dollar value of over $5Bn, which works out to $35Bn in today’s prices. Slaves were the biggest single asset class and the biggest single component of the American economy, more so than all the industry, machinery, free labour, infrastructure or productive capacity of the entire American nation. The only thing more valuable was the actual land and that was impossible to value, since Westward expansion was still far from complete or even fully underway, so no-one could place a dollar value on it.

Slaves were assets. And they appreciated in value, significantly.

For instance, a male slave who was sold at 12 for $1000, sold again at aged 14 for $1500 and once more in his late teens for $2000 in the 1850s around the time of his 17th birthday. Which brings me to the next point;

sell your children far away so you never see them again

I thought it was your contention that slaves never (or rarely) reproduced themselves? Not true. I revise my original claim. Of the 4 or so “true” slave societies in human history, American slavery is the only one where the slave population grew by itself, rather than purely by new imports. Partly this was due to climate, diet, less brutal punishments, but American slaves made more slaves, which meant more capital assets to sell, which increased the slaveholder’s net worth.

Having children with other slaves was usually a liability.  A different claim there.

A manifestly untrue one for the reasons I’ve just given.

I will give you money few women ever breast fed even a dozen babies at one time.

Consecutively, not concurrently. That would just be silly. If you have 50 slaves, designate one to be the wet nurse for any offspring and that one woman will probably be able to serve in that capacity for 30 years or so and rear several dozen babies that otherwise would have died or kept their mothers away from the fields for months at a time.

The Market demanded a more efficient solution to the problem of childcare, and Lo!, the Market did provide one.

Isn’t totally unconstrained Capitalistic Avarice great?

The Mammy was a Black woman who raised her owner’s White children.  Not other Black children.

Both. Only not so much with the breast feeding in the case of the owner’s children, unless she valued her hide.

Not to mention that very often the owner’s children *were* her children and also slaves as well, as was the case with all of Thomas Jefferson’s children except the first two. And his common law Second Wife in all but name (also a slave) was also his FIRST wife’s half sister.

Her name was Sally Hemmings. I prefer to refer to her usually as Sally Hemmings-Jefferson to make damn sure people know about it and because I feel also that she more than earned the right for history to recognise and consider her as such.

He schooled his children well, by the way, and invested much in their training and education so that they would be spared a life of poverty, brutality and the lash. Many other liberal slaveholders did likewise to give at least some of their slaves a fighting chance of getting off of the bottom rung of society.

Most, however, were more than complicit in keeping the mass of their workforce down at heel.

Remind you of anyone?

134

And I always thought that it was a Liberal government who introduced conscription in 1916.

@131

Because it is not mandatory.  If you want to refuse, unlike Bevin’s boys, you can.  If you get a job elsewhere, you can leave.  If you simply want to leave, you can leave.  You won’t even necessarily lose your JSA if you know how to play the system properly.

That’s a vaguely astonishing claim, to say that a mandatory activity required to continue to receive benefit to which you were otherwise entitled *without* undertaking the activity isn’t mandatory. Even though it’s got “Mandatory” in the name and is in fact mandatory under the rules, subject to the discretion of individual DWP staff and case officers.

If you are not employed and still require unemployment benefit to support yourself and your family until such time as you find yourself paid work, and that support will be removed unless you comply with instructions is no free choice. “You can leave” or “You can get a job elsewhere” is glib, naive and delusional.

It’s not mandatory for people to live in a house on dry land. They’re perfectly welcome and free to set up home somewhere on the surface of the mid-Atlantic Ocean, but it’s reasonable to assume that they’ll almost certainly drown in the attempt.

@131

You won’t even necessarily lose your JSA if you know how to play the system properly.

Sorry, are you advocating dishonest conduct or suggesting that Workfare actively incentivises it? Or both?

@131


Yes.  Well yes and no.  If the State directs your efforts, if they control every single aspect of what you do – from who you hire and fire, from what you dig and how much, if they set the price you buy and sell, if you are told who to sell to, it is possible to consider this private ownership but then again it isn’t.  It is a little more complicated than that.

Except it isn’t at all. You’re lapsing into crypto-Hayekian hyperbole again. That’s a managed economy. Not public ownership. You know, like Ted Heath ended up practicing.

If there’s only one shareholder and that shareholder is the state, that’s public ownership. If there are one or more indidivuals who own shares in a commercial interest and they receive a share of the profits, that’s private ownership.

It doesn’t matter one jot who the customers are, how much they pay for the product or service or what the conditions of sale are – the profit or loss is on the owners, not the state, even in a war economy.

There is no ambiguity there, either in practice or law, only in libertarian philosophy.

But rhetoric will not make it so.

@131

At the end of the week these people have money in their pocket.  That is a wage.  

Not according to either statute law, common law, tort law, the OED, DWP rules and Guidelines, virtually any form of economic orthodoxy or common sense.

And they don’t have money in their pocket at the end of the week.

JSA is paid fortnightly. In the middle of the week. By BACS.

So they MAY have money in their pocket a week on Wednesday. Assuming they able to get to a cashpoint first. But certainly not at the end of the week.

@131

They are not entitled to it for doing nothing. Other people are, but these people are not.  They are also learning skills and gaining experience.  I am not claiming much except the obvious – these people are being paid.

They are entitled to it if they are actively looking for paid work as their main daily activity. Which is not possible to do if you are working 40 hrs a week for someone else for no wages and no liklihood of a job offer from that employer.

I wonder how many highly paid MP’s would stack shelves all night in exchange for nothing?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  2. Bleam

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  3. Owen

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  4. Ferret Dave

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  5. Martin Shovel

    RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/ux61CbIX

  6. Tent101

    The state should pay instead, of course >> RT @libcon How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/SFB2XwXw

  7. Brian Bailey

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  8. William Robehod

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  9. sunny hundal

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  10. Casper ter Kuile

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  11. Mike Fraser

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  12. dji45

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  13. AC

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  14. Mike Parker

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  15. Nomad

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  16. cutchswife

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  17. Sam

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  18. manytypesoftea

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  19. Eugene Grant

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  20. Caroline Penn

    That Tesco JSA job is wrong for so many reason. Every time someone tweets it, I get angry all over again.
    #TescoShame
    http://t.co/6pQGMYOb

  21. Amardeep Kainth

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  22. Caroline Penn

    The Tesco JSA job is wrong for so many reasons. Every time someone retweets it I get angry all over again.
    #TescoShame
    http://t.co/6pQGMYOb

  23. Ricardo Lobo-Morell

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/JVlLhkDj

  24. Simon Johnson-Ware

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  25. Simon Johnson-Ware

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  26. Peter Welsh

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  27. Occupy London

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  28. Panda

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  29. Mike Smart

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  30. Mike Smart

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  31. Paul Nezandonyi

    Tesco should be ashamed > RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/EqtieNlD

  32. Paul Nezandonyi

    Tesco should be ashamed > RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/EqtieNlD

  33. Jonty Malingerer

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  34. Jonty Malingerer

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  35. Simon

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  36. Panda

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  37. Neill Shenton

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  38. Dawn Willis

    RT @AlisdairC How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6RTdiOVT via @libcon #wrb

  39. John Turner

    RT @AlisdairC How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6RTdiOVT via @libcon #wrb

  40. Victoria†

    Wow! RT "@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/hME8IdCE&quot;

  41. noob

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  42. I_am_peevee

    @UKTesco @liberalconspiracy what are your thoughts on enforced labour, Gareth? http://t.co/fKjL8zjv

  43. BevR

    RT @AlisdairC How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6RTdiOVT via @libcon #wrb

  44. Mark Wright

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  45. Polittiscribe

    This is a staggeringly stupid story from the UK's biggest retailer… http://t.co/xoSTdyPh

  46. Andrew Donnelly

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  47. Top Trending UK

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  48. Justin

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  49. Alastair Murray

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  50. John McIrvine

    http://t.co/MGGmFOit

  51. paolo

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  52. Inna Mood

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  53. John MacL

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  54. horrida bella

    Tesco come up with foolproof way to find employees with strong work ethic! http://t.co/iOFrb8Pj via @libcon @sunny_hundal

  55. trevor key

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  56. Paul McCaffery

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  57. eleanor lisney

    RT @AlisdairC How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6RTdiOVT via @libcon #wrb

  58. George McIrvine

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  59. Karl

    #Tesco CAN treat jobseekers like slaves as long as Tories like Chris Grayling can whack poor with massaged job figs; http://t.co/qUaX2dwT

  60. Pink Humanist

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  61. David Southall

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  62. Paul McConville

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  63. Peter

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  64. TalentCoop Norah B

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  65. CHRIS.M

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  66. Robin Ince

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  67. Hugh O'Donnell

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  68. Sean Stanley

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  69. #pressreform

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  70. Rich Carey

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  71. Tait Macleod Law

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  72. Dan Jordan

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  73. Dan Jordan

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  74. Gama Clothing

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  75. Gama Clothing

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  76. Russell Jones

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  77. Russell Jones

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  78. Stephen Walker

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  79. Stephen Walker

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  80. Wayne Williams

    Disgusting! >> RT @sunny_hundal How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/uRXGMboN

  81. Wayne Williams

    Disgusting! >> RT @sunny_hundal How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/uRXGMboN

  82. Ken Rice

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lKijsHfW via @libcon

  83. Ken Rice

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lKijsHfW via @libcon

  84. christina sosseh

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Jr9nV0h7 via @libcon

  85. Mike Shaw

    Saw the early shoots of this Tesco JSA story late last night. Pleased it's getting proper attention today. http://t.co/gNq5OJJR

  86. Jo Platt

    RT Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/sOnZA9Mw @sunny_hundal

  87. Bionic_Tweets

    How every little helps. “@sunny_hundal:companies like Tesco paying workers virtually nothing thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/ANOm2UFY”

  88. Tim HB

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  89. Constantine Sandis

    This is a scandal: RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/4ZnE60OW

  90. JobHits.net

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/h8rPW1Cr via @libcon

  91. Emma Watkins

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  92. isaac mchale

    RT @sunny_hundal: How companies like @uktesco Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/RpBYkBpt

  93. Sanjeela Pahl

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  94. Philip Whiteley

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  95. Ollie Chanter

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  96. Frank Xerri

    How every little helps. “@sunny_hundal:companies like Tesco paying workers virtually nothing thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/ANOm2UFY”

  97. Ads Gosling

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  98. Sean_Whewell

    Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/dsqGa4YZ” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco @UKTesco

  99. Sean_Whewell

    Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/dsqGa4YZ” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco @UKTesco

  100. Sean_Whewell

    Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/dsqGa4YZ” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco @UKTesco

  101. Sean_Whewell

    Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/dsqGa4YZ” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco @UKTesco

  102. Sean_Whewell

    Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/dsqGa4YZ” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco @UKTesco

  103. Sean_Whewell

    Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/dsqGa4YZ” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco @UKTesco

  104. Gav W

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  105. Gav W

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  106. Homogulater

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  107. Homogulater

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  108. karen pearson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  109. Roger E

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  110. Alan

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  111. Tony Dotchin

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  112. jen

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  113. sheila scoular

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  114. Annie Makoff

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  115. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  116. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  117. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  118. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  119. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  120. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  121. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  122. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  123. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  124. Mark Williamson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  125. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  126. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  127. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  128. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  129. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  130. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  131. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  132. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  133. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  134. John Turner

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  135. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  136. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  137. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  138. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  139. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  140. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  141. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  142. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  143. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  144. Noel Bannon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/rkelD67B via @libcon

  145. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  146. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  147. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  148. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  149. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  150. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  151. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  152. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  153. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  154. Dark and Twisty

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  155. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  156. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  157. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  158. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  159. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  160. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  161. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  162. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  163. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  164. reecesnan01

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  165. Shades of Black

    Tesco should be ashamed > RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/EqtieNlD

  166. Shades of Black

    Tesco should be ashamed > RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/EqtieNlD

  167. Shades of Black

    Tesco should be ashamed > RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/EqtieNlD

  168. Shades of Black

    Tesco should be ashamed > RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/EqtieNlD

  169. reecesnan01

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  170. reecesnan01

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  171. reecesnan01

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  172. reecesnan01

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  173. Lloyd Morgan

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  174. Claire Knowles

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  175. Jonathan

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  176. All work no PAY #equality #Tescogate | Dawn Willis sharing the News & Views of the Mentally Wealthy

    [...] http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/02/16/how-companies-like-tesco-are-paying-workers-virtually-nothin… This news is worth spreading..StumbleUponDiggRedditTwitterFacebookEmailLinkedInPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  177. Jenny Jones

    Multinational greed. MT@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/L8Xhv6Eu

  178. Jenny Jones

    Multinational greed. MT@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/L8Xhv6Eu

  179. Jenny Jones

    Multinational greed. MT@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/L8Xhv6Eu

  180. Jonathan Naess

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  181. Jonathan Naess

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  182. Jonathan Naess

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  183. Captain Disco

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/MFueINPX via @libcon & @sunny_hundal

  184. Captain Disco

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/MFueINPX via @libcon & @sunny_hundal

  185. Captain Disco

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/MFueINPX via @libcon & @sunny_hundal

  186. Sara Ibrahim

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  187. Sara Ibrahim

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  188. Sara Ibrahim

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  189. Rad

    How every little helps. “@sunny_hundal:companies like Tesco paying workers virtually nothing thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/ANOm2UFY”

  190. Arron Thompson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  191. darth vaper The 3rd

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  192. Jonny Symonds

    The financial incentive is for Tesco, to give someone a chance they otherwise wouldn't touch http://t.co/16q0BG7V @sunny_hundal

  193. Hayley Anne James

    “@libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/mph2bSn2” how is this right?

  194. Graham Simmons

    "Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/zw9Z3mXI&quot; #slavery?

  195. Cornish Meads

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  196. Cornish Meads

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  197. Cornish Meads

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  198. Cornish Meads

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  199. Cornish Meads

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  200. Cornish Meads

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  201. Stefan Laity

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – | Liberal Conspiracy – @libcon http://t.co/mhYVOQqp

  202. Stefan Laity

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – | Liberal Conspiracy – @libcon http://t.co/mhYVOQqp

  203. Stefan Laity

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – | Liberal Conspiracy – @libcon http://t.co/mhYVOQqp

  204. Stefan Laity

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – | Liberal Conspiracy – @libcon http://t.co/mhYVOQqp

  205. Stefan Laity

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – | Liberal Conspiracy – @libcon http://t.co/mhYVOQqp

  206. Gem Kendrick

    vile. “@sunny_hundal: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/RNi4dd9U”

  207. Gem Kendrick

    vile. “@sunny_hundal: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/RNi4dd9U”

  208. Gem Kendrick

    vile. “@sunny_hundal: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/RNi4dd9U”

  209. Gem Kendrick

    vile. “@sunny_hundal: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/RNi4dd9U”

  210. Gem Kendrick

    vile. “@sunny_hundal: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/RNi4dd9U”

  211. TentCityUni LSX

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  212. TentCityUni LSX

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  213. TentCityUni LSX

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  214. TentCityUni LSX

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  215. TentCityUni LSX

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  216. Mark Pentler

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  217. Mark Pentler

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  218. Mark Pentler

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  219. Mark Pentler

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  220. Mark Pentler

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  221. Naomi Fowler

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  222. Naomi Fowler

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  223. Naomi Fowler

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  224. Naomi Fowler

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  225. Cornish Meads

    @nbthegreenman @luggermatt How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/pwjsALzF

  226. Cornish Meads

    @nbthegreenman @luggermatt How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/pwjsALzF

  227. Cornish Meads

    @nbthegreenman @luggermatt How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/pwjsALzF

  228. sarah bayley

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  229. sarah bayley

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  230. James Phelps

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  231. les wilkins,

    @nbthegreenman @luggermatt How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/pwjsALzF

  232. Sadie Brown

    This is nothing less than modern slavery. And Tesco should be ashamed of itself for exploiting workers like this. http://t.co/2PON3r55

  233. iiPAY

    RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/nXnVydrl

  234. Jonny Symonds

    @toadmeister I appeal to you to pen something rational to quell the hysteria over http://t.co/16q0BG7V – my rebuffs are drowning

  235. Becca

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  236. Kevin Davidson

    Tesco come up with foolproof way to find employees with strong work ethic! http://t.co/iOFrb8Pj via @libcon @sunny_hundal

  237. Hana Knowlden

    @tesco this is public discrimination http://t.co/CtUTmt9w #whodoyouthinkyouare

  238. alicepappins

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  239. Martin

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  240. Corpse Lights

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  241. Ferg Slade

    Govt can’t create jobs nor cut the minimum wage, so it’s trying to cut welfare bill by forcing people to work for free" http://t.co/w7BuwgQo

  242. John Gray

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  243. Charles Smith Brocca

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  244. Legal Aware

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  245. Kelly Kaye

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  246. Unite Scotland

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  247. Adam Moore

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  248. Mr Rob

    @collettebird http://t.co/PQe32gL7

  249. Juan Malagon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  250. Sea Warrior

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  251. Varzoth

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wjalCZgU via @libcon

  252. Varzoth

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wjalCZgU via @libcon

  253. Varzoth

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wjalCZgU via @libcon

  254. Varzoth

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wjalCZgU via @libcon

  255. Varzoth

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wjalCZgU via @libcon

  256. Varzoth

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wjalCZgU via @libcon

  257. Varzoth

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wjalCZgU via @libcon

  258. Varzoth

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wjalCZgU via @libcon

  259. Margaret Harrison

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  260. Margaret Harrison

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  261. Margaret Harrison

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  262. Margaret Harrison

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  263. Margaret Harrison

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  264. Margaret Harrison

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  265. Margaret Harrison

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  266. Margaret Harrison

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  267. peace_news

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  268. peace_news

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  269. peace_news

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  270. peace_news

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  271. peace_news

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  272. peace_news

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  273. peace_news

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  274. Katie Ann

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  275. Katie Ann

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  276. Katie Ann

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  277. Katie Ann

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  278. Katie Ann

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  279. Katie Ann

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  280. Katie Ann

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  281. Blake Drayson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  282. Blake Drayson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  283. Blake Drayson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  284. Blake Drayson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  285. Blake Drayson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  286. Karen Bryan

    How every little helps. “@sunny_hundal:companies like Tesco paying workers virtually nothing thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/ANOm2UFY”

  287. Karen Bryan

    How every little helps. “@sunny_hundal:companies like Tesco paying workers virtually nothing thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/ANOm2UFY”

  288. Karen Bryan

    How every little helps. “@sunny_hundal:companies like Tesco paying workers virtually nothing thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/ANOm2UFY”

  289. Karen Bryan

    How every little helps. “@sunny_hundal:companies like Tesco paying workers virtually nothing thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/ANOm2UFY”

  290. Karen Bryan

    How every little helps. “@sunny_hundal:companies like Tesco paying workers virtually nothing thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/ANOm2UFY”

  291. Richard Romain

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  292. Richard Romain

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  293. Richard Romain

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  294. Richard Romain

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  295. Richard Romain

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  296. steven o'neill

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  297. steven o'neill

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  298. steven o'neill

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  299. cellabiao

    Multinational greed. MT@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/L8Xhv6Eu

  300. cellabiao

    Multinational greed. MT@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/L8Xhv6Eu

  301. cellabiao

    Multinational greed. MT@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/L8Xhv6Eu

  302. Leanne O'Donnell

    . @UKTesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just 'Job Seeker Allowance' benefits + expenses. http://t.co/AyaiyGZk via @PaulbernalUK

  303. Leanne O'Donnell

    . @UKTesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just 'Job Seeker Allowance' benefits + expenses. http://t.co/AyaiyGZk via @PaulbernalUK

  304. Shades of Black

    I haven't shopped in Tesco for months and this is why http://t.co/3lN7Wzzg Surely if you have a job vacancy you should pay a living wage KMT

  305. Roger T Bunting

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  306. Margo Milne

    RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/DkKBDlDt

  307. Jonny Symonds

    Seems my highschool work experience was immoral as I (my parents) only got child benefit whilst I was doing it http://t.co/16q0BG7V #loonies

  308. DJE

    Tesco are paying workers nothing: Great taxpayers pick up Tesco wage bill! No longer an incentive to hire paid staff. http://t.co/9KXKWRtU

  309. Elizabeth Lloyd

    RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/DkKBDlDt

  310. Debtology

    “@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/MF0KBxbx” Astonished

  311. macbuddha

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  312. Alex 'J' May

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  313. ArabMagician

    “@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/kJ90PZH7”

  314. Roddy Shippin

    Multinational greed. MT@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/L8Xhv6Eu

  315. Pete Horton

    Our taxes now subsidise Tesco. One of the most depressing things I've ever read. Corporations own this country. http://t.co/927h6cpR

  316. Chrissy Kelly

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  317. David Keep

    How every little helps. “@sunny_hundal:companies like Tesco paying workers virtually nothing thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/ANOm2UFY”

  318. Tony McDaid

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  319. Walker

    @carthalis Tesco are advertising for night-shift workers at Job Centres, and the salary is "JSA + Expenses". http://t.co/92NDl27E

  320. Shaun McDonald

    Multinational greed. MT@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/L8Xhv6Eu

  321. S

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  322. francis clossick

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  323. Los Salvadores

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  324. Roger T Bunting

    If everyone pissed off by http://t.co/T09rLxKh went to Tesco, filled up a troll with frozen stuff & just left it at the checkout

  325. Roger T Bunting

    If everyone pissed off by http://t.co/T09rLxKh went to Tesco, filled up a troll with frozen stuff & just left it at the checkout

  326. Dee Griffiths

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  327. Dee Griffiths

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  328. Sebastian Henderson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/vg9Jy7Nh via @libcon

  329. Sebastian Henderson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/vg9Jy7Nh via @libcon

  330. A.Yasin® ?

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  331. A.Yasin® ?

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  332. Justine Lattimer

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  333. Jon Stormbeard

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  334. Lucy Goudie

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  335. Paul Beattie

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing… http://t.co/x0Oj9oLQ <–who's surprised??

  336. Paul Beattie

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing… http://t.co/x0Oj9oLQ <–who's surprised??

  337. Paul Beattie

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing… http://t.co/x0Oj9oLQ <–who's surprised??

  338. Paul Beattie

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing… http://t.co/x0Oj9oLQ <–who's surprised??

  339. DJE

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  340. DJE

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  341. DJE

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  342. DJE

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  343. Julian Rowley

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  344. Julian Rowley

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  345. Julian Rowley

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  346. Julian Rowley

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  347. venemous vilain

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  348. venemous vilain

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  349. venemous vilain

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  350. venemous vilain

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  351. mike stanton

    @sunny_hundal Tesco story broken link. Link is working again. http://t.co/v2Xlurjw There goes another conspiracy theory.

  352. mike stanton

    @sunny_hundal Tesco story broken link. Link is working again. http://t.co/v2Xlurjw There goes another conspiracy theory.

  353. mike stanton

    @sunny_hundal Tesco story broken link. Link is working again. http://t.co/v2Xlurjw There goes another conspiracy theory.

  354. mike stanton

    @sunny_hundal Tesco story broken link. Link is working again. http://t.co/v2Xlurjw There goes another conspiracy theory.

  355. Conor McBride

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  356. Conor McBride

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  357. Conor McBride

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  358. Conor McBride

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  359. Andy S

    Outrage as @UKTesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/vubNQkOE (via @sunny_hundal)

  360. Andy S

    Outrage as @UKTesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/vubNQkOE (via @sunny_hundal)

  361. Andy S

    Outrage as @UKTesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/vubNQkOE (via @sunny_hundal)

  362. Andy S

    Outrage as @UKTesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/vubNQkOE (via @sunny_hundal)

  363. Rosemary Macdonald

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  364. Rosemary Macdonald

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  365. Rosemary Macdonald

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  366. david stevenson

    Outrage as @UKTesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/vubNQkOE (via @sunny_hundal)

  367. david stevenson

    Outrage as @UKTesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/vubNQkOE (via @sunny_hundal)

  368. Amanda Kendal

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  369. Liza Harding

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  370. Liza Harding

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  371. Liza Harding

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  372. Liza Harding

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  373. Mark

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  374. Mark

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  375. Mark

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  376. Mark

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  377. Christopher Brown

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  378. Christopher Brown

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  379. Christopher Brown

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  380. Christopher Brown

    You've probably read about this already, but here's another story about how fucked up things in this country are: http://t.co/YPuoP0dv

  381. Valerie Burnett

    Retweet from Sunny Hundal Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/3RnCu7QT

  382. Valerie Burnett

    Retweet from Sunny Hundal Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/3RnCu7QT

  383. Valerie Burnett

    Retweet from Sunny Hundal Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/3RnCu7QT

  384. Olivia P

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  385. Olivia P

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  386. Olivia P

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  387. Valerie Burnett

    RT- Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/3RnCu7QT” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  388. Valerie Burnett

    RT- Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/3RnCu7QT” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  389. Valerie Burnett

    RT- Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/3RnCu7QT” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  390. Julie Pittuck Wilson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  391. Julie Pittuck Wilson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  392. Julie Pittuck Wilson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  393. jayne lawless

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  394. jayne lawless

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  395. Vivienne Ward

    RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/DkKBDlDt

  396. Brenna Hassett

    @samarkeolog @ThatGeoffChap looks like awareness of that tesco job 40hrs / £60 week is growing- better apply quick! http://t.co/xMv334Oz

  397. Tim Frost

    Is this Tesco's Deep Water Horizon moment? http://t.co/8cWjor8s #JSA #Tesco

  398. Emma Ovington

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  399. Sonny17

    Richer together? The reality of Tory Britain: http://t.co/0BvHfiAw

  400. thesmallwhitebear

    Tesco should be ashamed of itself for exploiting workers like this. http://t.co/u6uHLGyT -job interview-not suitable, pass me another slave.

  401. Nick Morgan

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  402. Faceless

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  403. Scoltand

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  404. Fish

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  405. Bradley McLaughlin

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  406. Rob Haynes

    Work the Tesco night shift for nothing – or presumably lose your benefits. It's a brave new world. http://t.co/dGTUYRkQ

  407. Euan Monaghan

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  408. Paul Wilson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  409. Star Hart

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  410. Star Hart

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  411. Top Trending UK

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  412. willie thomson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  413. willie thomson

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  414. Jayne Dillon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  415. Jayne Dillon

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  416. Star Hart

    Is this Tesco's Deep Water Horizon moment? http://t.co/8cWjor8s #JSA #Tesco

  417. Ferret Dave

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  418. William Robehod

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  419. willie thomson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ieog8iO9 via @libcon

  420. meadstweet

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  421. Jeni Parsons

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  422. NF

    @UKTesco Hey there, Gareth. Why is Tesco paying slave wages while taxpayers foot the bill? http://t.co/S94zbXwF

  423. Steve Cox

    RT @arnielkp @non_food_nick @CEHarris16: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/0fYrLTHZ have you seen?

  424. Thomas Goodwin, G.G.

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  425. Sarah Ransley

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  426. Virginia Moffatt

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  427. BevR

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  428. Lee Meade

    Liberal Conspiracy: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/eHl0aLBc via @zite

  429. Paul Sheppard

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  430. Kristina Carr

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  431. MetalMadnessTV.com

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  432. Rustydunce

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  433. london_man83

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  434. Dominic Parker

    “@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/wodrOwLV” @tfrmn

  435. New Town Flaneur

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing: http://t.co/pexh2JVa

  436. sophie goodswin

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  437. Kraig T. Heymans

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  438. Graham Levene

    Disgusted! And even 'ethical' companies do it RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/sOboEXnN

  439. ?Marc Gellen

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  440. Poppy Lawton

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  441. mardibum63

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  442. Shres Mahésh

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  443. Lisa Harvey

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  444. Jennifer Akelo

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  445. Mat Lloyd

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  446. Gavin Longworth

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  447. Penelope Tindall

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  448. Sean Blinkhorn

    KNEW tesco were evil. RT "@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing http://t.co/2Z4vLolC&quot;

  449. John Hamblin

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  450. freiahill

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  451. Nick H.

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  452. David Traynier

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  453. Nick H.

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  454. Maryam Pasha

    Wonderful forced labour in the UK! http://t.co/1Y8TL8GS http://t.co/IhtW48iG #sarcasm #slavery #JSA # TESCO

  455. James Billingham

    WTF kinda piss take is that Tesco? Work for free? http://t.co/uuJ5Ogjo”

  456. Chris Barker

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/hkIWT0HG

  457. Craig Worthington

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  458. Lawrence

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  459. Natalie Reeves

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  460. AL MOSES SMITH

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  461. Si Sweeney

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  462. Compass

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/4x2uW5WI via @libcon

  463. Carl Davig

    Oh . . . RT “@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/ufrB8CEC”

  464. James Wood

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  465. Lucie

    RT @libcon: How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/6Ehd5rox

  466. Robert Cook

    http://t.co/yshhTz9K #toriesout #tescoslavery

  467. Lucy Sammons

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  468. Daniel

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  469. Lucy Sammons

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  470. PDoolan

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  471. Favstar Pop

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/HEYulvzD Modern Day Slavery

  472. Rhian A Adams

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  473. Tesco PR disaster and crisis management tips | 3ManFactory

    [...] Sunny Hundal, Guardian reporter spotted the vacancy and referred to it as, “nothing more than modern slavery” in his blog [...]

  474. When modernisation isn’t really modernisation « Representing the Mambo

    [...] pretty horrific story doing the rounds today is that of the Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) and Tesco. To sum up, it is companies such as Tesco getting free labour while the government continues to pay [...]

  475. Martell Thornton

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing …: There was a lot of outrage on Twitter last ni… http://t.co/xlAE0YSM

  476. Martell Thornton

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers … – Liberal Conspiracy: There was a lot of outrage on Twitter last… http://t.co/yvZ6d6wa

  477. The Manor House B&B

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  478. Simon Johnson-Ware

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  479. Just Mo

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  480. Oli Wal

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  481. NORBET

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/bQeaQz3W via @libcon

  482. LivingwithKids

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  483. ? claire hill ?

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  484. carrie

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  485. Sheena Wilson

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  486. John Turner

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  487. Noel Halton

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  488. Alex M

    @mark_a_w “@sunny_hundal: Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/jCV0JIsL”

  489. Keith Davis

    RT @AlisdairC How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6RTdiOVT via @libcon #wrb

  490. Keith Davis

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  491. Kevan Alderman

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  492. Tina Blamey

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing – thanks to a govt scheme http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  493. Heather Kelly Glass

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  494. Sarah Mallory

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  495. Nicholas Spencer

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  496. Kelsey Makepeace

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  497. Stephen Liddle

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  498. Andy Hicks

    MT Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/agNkuWyc via @libcon Slavery, not w/experience as some claim.

  499. TapselteerieO

    MT Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/agNkuWyc via @libcon Slavery, not w/experience as some claim.

  500. Persistent Pete

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  501. Tom Casey

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/nEC8LD51 via @libcon

  502. fraise

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. http://t.co/9P4rMgJm” Disgrace, utter disgrace. #tesco

  503. FRED WILLIAMS

    http://t.co/kWsq7hGs http://t.co/vaezERwa

  504. Henry Adams

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  505. Ryan ODonoghue

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  506. Anthony LaMesa

    Outrage as Tesco advertises jobs that pay nothing – just JSA benefits + expenses. That's it http://t.co/LtDuWtzM

  507. Revealed: The other companies that benefit from free ‘work experience’ | Liberal Conspiracy

    [...] by Sunny Hundal     February 19, 2012 at 8:58 pm Late last week it was revealed that Tesco had advertised permanent jobs that paid nothing other than ‘JSA + [...]

  508. Elinor Predota

    RT @Quinonostante @AlisdairC How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing http://t.co/r00x9Un4 via @libcon #wrb

  509. Workfare: London Assembly Member defends the indefensible

    [...] adopters of the scheme have already been posting job ads for permanent unpaid positions, and over 24,000 people have already been blackmailed in this way. Clearly, after more than a few months of working for [...]

  510. Meeh Isis

    How companies like Tesco are paying workers virtually nothing JSA+expenses http://t.co/0qHC39CG Modern Day Slavery

  511. Burger King Becomes The Latest To Pull Out Of The Governments #Workfare Scheme | Social Welfare Advocacy

    [...] Hundal, Guardian reporter and writer of Liberal Conspiracy blog wrote: “This is nothing less than modern slavery. Tesco should be ashamed of itself for exploiting workers like [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.