How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare?


by Sunny Hundal    
8:30 am - February 22nd 2012

      Share on Tumblr

Yesterday Iain Duncan Smith said in the Daily Mail that opponents of Workfare “constitute a group of modern-day Luddites” for opposing his version of modern-day slavery.

By the time the article was published, some on his trumpeted list of employers such as Argos and Superdrug had already pulled out. Oops.

By the end of the day even Tesco had released a statement distancing itself from the original agreement.

But the Tesco statement also highlights IDS’ lies.

Tesco has today announced that from now on any young person accepted for work experience with Tesco will be offered a choice:

- – To participate in the Government scheme, which protects their benefits for the duration of the four-week placement. Tesco has suggested to the Department of Work and Pensions that, to avoid any misunderstanding about the voluntary nature of the scheme, the risk of losing benefits that currently exists should be removed.

- – Alternatively, to be paid by Tesco for the four-week placement, with a guaranteed permanent job at the end of it, provided they complete the placement satisfactorily.

Richard Brasher, CEO of Tesco UK, said “We know it is difficult for young people to give up benefits for a short-term placement with no permanent job at the end of it. So this guarantee that a job will be available provided the placement is completed satisfactorily, should be a major confidence boost for young people wanting to enter work on a permanent basis.”

Tesco committed 3000 work placements under the Government’s work experience scheme. To date around 1500 have been delivered.

We will offer the choice of paid work and the jobs guarantee to all of the remaining placements we will deliver under the scheme. 300 young people undertaking work experience with Tesco have already found work with us and we are confident that many more will through this approach.

So Tesco themselves admit the scheme was mandatory for people or they’d lose their benefits – contradicting IDS’ article.

They are now also offering a different scheme where jobseekers are paid by Tesco for a month-long placement, with a guaranteed permanent job at the end given satisfaction.

In other words Tesco could have done more from the start but chose instead to take advantage of cheap labour.

Good on them for eventually changing their stance – IDS will have to back from his own sooner or later.

    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: News


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Like most Tories, IDS is a shameless buffoon.

What exactly are these jobs? This is an apparently huge change from a guaranteed interview to a guaranteed job. For those of us who look at the “no vacancy/all jobs available by online application” job boards in every supermarket, what are they creating? How many guaranteed hours will these guaranteed jobs have written into the contract, or is this just like hospitality, where you get a zero-hours contract?
At what point to people make the transition between the Job Centre recommending work experience internships (i.e. the benefit guarantee route) to the job application with a four week trial period paid by Tesco? Is it only gross misconduct that would prevent someone getting a permanent contract after a month, or will there be weasel non-conditions that can be trumped out to exclude people – such as having to phone a number for the next shift, the person on the end-of-the-line promising to phone back and then the “trainee” apparently missing a shift?
Can you tell that I have fallen foul of these “opportunities” to work anti-social and long hours to “impress” during a trial – buying uniform items, buying car-parking permits etc. – only to fail to be the one of the “large number” of “high quality” applicants to eventually succeed?

3. Oliver Conner

Tesco don’t say how much they will pay – could they get away with paying less than minimum wage?

I think it’s a bit disingenuous to lay the blame for this at IDS. This workfare scheme, and also the awful change from incapacity benefit to employment support allowance, came about as a result of Labour’s 2009 welfare reform act. IDS’s changes haven’t happenes yet.

I don’t support the Tories, but we should fight the Tories in our own party too!

According to the above article, about 1in 5 people put on placements with them have been permanently employed by Tesco.

The anti-capitalists need to explain why they would employ anyone if they have a ready supply of “free labour” on tap?

If the placement scheme helps employers try out potential employees and lets good kids find real jobs it should be welcomed.

Though. of course, participation should be entirely voluntary.

I greatly enjoyed Smith’s tantrum in the Mail, while Grayling is a cynical liar Smith’s delusions are so enormous I can only surmise that he inhabits a different universe. When even the comments on the Daily Hate are against him, even the maddest cabinet minister should realise he is as the man who places his penis in the biscuit tin – fucking crackers.

Pagar @ 5

These are not ‘new’ jobs, though are they? These are jobs they needed to fill anyway, they just used your money to do the recruiting and training and exploited others in the process.

The anti-capitalists need to explain why they would employ anyone if they have a ready supply of “free labour” on tap?

Because of the threat of boycots, and because ‘employing’ people coerced by the State isn’t actually capitalism, its corporatism. Are you really suggesting this scheme was capitalist?

@ Shatterface

Because of the threat of boycots, and because ‘employing’ people coerced by the State isn’t actually capitalism, its corporatism. Are you really suggesting this scheme was capitalist?

No, you are absolutely correct. This is an example of state corporatism and the state should have no role whatever in the employment market, or any other.

On the other hand, seeing as the government does insist on getting involved in areas it shouldn’t, we should at least try to judge the value of their pernicious interventions fairly, should we not?

10. Chaise Guevara

“In other words Tesco could have done more from the start but chose instead to take advantage of cheap labour.”

Sunny… as true as this is, you’re being counter-productive by banging on about it. Companies are less likely to fold in the face of consumer pressure if they know the end result will just be the same campaigners jeering at them and going on about how they’re still complete bastards.

No, you are absolutely correct. This is an example of state corporatism and the state should have no role whatever in the employment market, or any other.

It has a it has a role in ensuring a minimum wage, that health and safety regulations are adhered to, and in preventing discrimination in the job market. It doesn’t have a role in forcing people into unpaid employment at the tax-payers’ expense.

On the other hand, seeing as the government does insist on getting involved in areas it shouldn’t, we should at least try to judge the value of their pernicious interventions fairly, should we not?

Where those interventions are pernicious, then yes. The libertarian right should be offended by workfare on the grounds of both civil liberties and market interference as much as the libertarian left is on exploitation and the downward pressure on wages. The State should not be operating as the coercive arm of capitalism.

Sunny… as true as this is, you’re being counter-productive by banging on about it. Companies are less likely to fold in the face of consumer pressure if they know the end result will just be the same campaigners jeering at them and going on about how they’re still complete bastards.

I agree. We can hardly use statements from those who have now rejected the scheme as evidence of unfairness while still holding those employers in contempt, especially when this contempt is coming from members of a party which brought workfare in in the first place.

Chaise @ 10

Sunny… as true as this is, you’re being counter-productive by banging on about it. Companies are less likely to fold in the face of consumer pressure if they know the end result will just be the same campaigners jeering at them and going on about how they’re still complete bastards.

That is exactly what did not happen in this case, though. Despite all the sneering and smearing from the usual Right wingers, from Littlejohn down to cabinet ministers on Newsnight et al, this was not about ‘Socialist Workers’ waving placards. Tesco feared a backlash from normally non-politically galvanised people. Had this been a ‘Left Wing’ core group of activists they would have brazened it out.

However, once the wind settled into blowing in an obvious direction and the comments page of the Daily Mail’s and the like websites started to against the scheme, it was doomed. Despite Tesco being initially bullish regarding its defence of this scheme, come the weekend when public opinion had hardened and the scheme had became toxic. Even if everyone in the boardroom thinks it was great and even if it was a scheme worth defending, by Monday, no-one would wipe their arse with it. If there is one thing about politics we should always remember, when you are explaining, you are losing. IDS, Grayling and Littlejohn looked out of step and where left high and dry when Tesco pulled the plug.

The OP nearly asks if anything ‘useful’ has came out this. Well, from the point of the actual replacement scheme, who knows? However, from the point of view of Left Wing politics? Hell, Yeah!

Never let it be said that this Country is Right Wing dominated. Sure, the bigots and the socipaths have the ascendancy now, but with the right campaign on the right subject, we can still capture the public’s imagination. This campaign was not just about Lefties and the Guardista chattering classes, this was about people who feel that Tesco getting free labour is wrong. Of course the usual vermin who support this type of thing in any guise where still defending it and will be bleating away about it for a couple of days. At the end of the day, they just looked shrill and an embarrassment when Tesco were seen pulling the plug.

This was a short, tightly focused campaign and let’s face it, pretty aggressive in its use of language. Simple concepts, ‘slave labour’, ‘exploitation’, ‘parasites’, ‘corporate greed’ and the like appeal to the public, because we can see it and imagine what it looks like.

Tesco are a massive empire with a huge PR department, but they are not immune from having rhetorical toxic waste sticking to their signage.

When the Left dispense with the deferential stance and get onto the same level as the Right, we can slug it out. We do not need fifteen point intricate plans or long winded speeches, you need to get to what the heart of the matter is.

People on low incomes can see that they will be replaced with the unemployed, even if they think of them as dole scroungers, they don’t want them working in their shop, undercutting them. That is a simple concept to get across and infinitely easier to get across than defending benefits at twenty six grand a year. We know the Left have problems defending high concepts like ‘gay marriage’ and ‘human rights for alleged terrorists’, but if we keep tightly focussed on things that actually matter to people and actually impacts on their lives.

Yes, something ‘useful’ came out of this, but it is up to the Left to learn the leasons.

14. Chaise Guevara

@ 13 Jim

“That is exactly what did not happen in this case, though. Despite all the sneering and smearing from the usual Right wingers, from Littlejohn down to cabinet ministers on Newsnight et al, this was not about ‘Socialist Workers’ waving placards. Tesco feared a backlash from normally non-politically galvanised people. Had this been a ‘Left Wing’ core group of activists they would have brazened it out.”

Yes, but it still builds into the same trend. I’m sure companies will be quicker to stop listening to campaigns by the usual suspects, but if habits of being unpleasant in victory become widespread, so will the backlash. It simply removes the incentive to fold: why give up in the face of bad press if that means taking a direct hit to your profits and STILL suffering the bad press regardless?

“The OP nearly asks if anything ‘useful’ has came out this. Well, from the point of the actual replacement scheme, who knows? However, from the point of view of Left Wing politics? Hell, Yeah!”

Agree with this, and I’m not saying people shouldn’t celebrate the victory. I just think it’s a mistake to undermine future campaigns by being arseholes about it, basically. I’ve even seen people (on here, I think) saying we should maintain a boycott AFTER the company in question gave into demands, because “they only did it for PR anyway”. It serves no purpose other than to make future progress more difficult.

@ shatterface

It has a it has a role in ensuring a minimum wage, that health and safety regulations are adhered to, and in preventing discrimination in the job market.

We could argue about whether or not those are legitimate interventions but it would be a rather different debate.

The State should not be operating as the coercive arm of capitalism.

Nor, indeed should corporations operate as the coercive arm of the state.

Chaise @ 14

I’m sure companies will be quicker to stop listening to campaigns by the usual suspects, but if habits of being unpleasant in victory become widespread, so will the backlash. It simply removes the incentive to fold: why give up in the face of bad press if that means taking a direct hit to your profits and STILL suffering the bad press regardless?

No, because they cannot afford to play ‘cry wolf’ like that. They have to assume that every ‘threat’ is genuine or else the risk the next one is the one that takes them down a peg or two. Tesco are completely amoral in that sense, because everyone on the board who supported this scheme last week see it is no longer in their direct interest to support it. They will still hold the views they did last week, but they just have to accept that the public are against it and move on. They will have to ride out the bad press with better press.

Of course, they could decide to ask the question at every Government scheme ‘Where is our exit strategy if this goes tits up? The smartest person in the room will ask ‘Hmm, is this likely to blow up in our face?’

Next week data may come in that people no longer want pepperoni on their pizza, if that happens then pepperoni will be gone just as quickly, no biggy, just business.

I’ve even seen people (on here, I think) saying we should maintain a boycott AFTER the company in question gave into demands, because “they only did it for PR anyway”. It serves no purpose other than to make future progress more difficult.

That is not ‘our’ problem, though, is it? That is Tesco’s problem. What Tesco needs to learn is that if you make bad judgement calls it hurts you back pocket, crawling back to Tesco after they have made a pigs ear of it and they learn nothing.

To be honest, Tesco and the rest didn’t exactly do anything surprising when offered free labour, by accepting and exploiting it. It’s just what they do as profit hungry companies. Also, shitting itself and making grovelling overtures once it’s been rumbled, because it knows there’s serious boycotts on the way for it’s exploitative actions, is also quite unsurprising.

The shock and blame lies firmly with the Government and it’s ‘work or we’ll fucking see you starve you scrounging cunt’ attitude.

@16

What fantasy world are you living in, talking about the next campaign might be the one that “takes Tesco down a peg or two”? Last year that company turned a profit of £4 billion. I’m going to guess that the shopping habits of precisely two men and a dog have changed as a result of the brouhaha over this workfare scheme; they dropped the scheme, that’s your victory, but we’re not debating that, we’re debating whether you honestly think enough people’s shopping habits have changed to “take them down a peg or two”.

Chaise is right, I just think you are talking at cross-purposes to him. If you keep up the “Tesco bad predator capitalist” even when they do what you want, next time they will simply say “Sod what you want if that’s your attitude regardless”.

19. So Much For Subtlety

17. Cylux

To be honest, Tesco and the rest didn’t exactly do anything surprising when offered free labour, by accepting and exploiting it. It’s just what they do as profit hungry companies. Also, shitting itself and making grovelling overtures once it’s been rumbled, because it knows there’s serious boycotts on the way for it’s exploitative actions, is also quite unsurprising.

Except the labour is not free. It takes quite a lot of effort to train, supervise, insure and so no such people. In reality it is more likely that Tesco took a hit on employing these people but did so because they take their corporate social responsibility quite seriously. They always have in the past.

So once their actions were totally misconstrued, of course they dumped the scheme like a hot brick.

Which means that people who could have been helped will now be left to rot on the dole instead. Well done people. What a result.

The shock and blame lies firmly with the Government and it’s ‘work or we’ll fucking see you starve you scrounging cunt’ attitude.

An attitude that is better for everyone concerned. Everyone. If only the government actually had it.

20. Chaise Guevara

@ 16 Jim

“No, because they cannot afford to play ‘cry wolf’ like that. They have to assume that every ‘threat’ is genuine or else the risk the next one is the one that takes them down a peg or two.”

But what I’m saying is that you end up with a situation where it’s not a threat at all, because the damage is done either way. What kind of threat is “If you don’t change your ways we won’t buy your stuff, and if you do change your ways we still won’t buy your stuff”?

“That is not ‘our’ problem, though, is it? That is Tesco’s problem.”

How is it not our problem if it makes future campaigns less effective?

“What Tesco needs to learn is that if you make bad judgement calls it hurts you back pocket, crawling back to Tesco after they have made a pigs ear of it and they learn nothing.”

Understood, but if we all permanently stopped using companies that offended us, instead of just boycotting untill demands are met (and when demands are met it’s hardly “crawling back”, BTW), very quickly nobody who gave a shit would be shopping at these companies anyway. So they’d continue using as much child labour and exploitative business arrangements and environmentally damaging practices as they could legally get away with, marketing to the large quantity of people who don’t give a shit.

To me what real people need is real jobs. Lets take my mom as an example. She was offered two jobs doing menial work in a local factory in the 1950′s – no qualifications, no experience, trained on the job and paid like everyone else. Why isn’t it like that now? Employers going into schools, colleges and universities and working with local communities and people of all ages not just young people. Why is there a reluctance to train people. Like my mom said, who is actually against work experience, these are 2p jobs. People used to do them for basic guarenteed money and they were easy to get. But in the 1950′s all work was easier to get, you had to do less to get basic work, unlike now you have to have so much experience etc. People only get experience by someone giving them it, but why should anyone give labour for free unless they choose to. Work is designed so that people get paid but everyone is reluctant to pay anyone. As long as they get profit at the end of it. They are pulling wool over peoples eyes who’d rather read catchy headlines than look at things at a basic level.

In my eyes work experience is not standing shelf stacking certainly not for so many weeks, work experience was meant in schools, colleges and universities so that people do bits of work in loads of departments but also learn and given information on how a place works. Work experience is being used to have cheap labour in this case. If these people work 10 hours they would have paid for their £67.50 a week, end of, People wouldn’t mind doing 10 hours a week for £67.50 if it meant they were left alone and not forced into full time work. Even if you do voluntary work people force people to find jobs, that’s all their interested on, but as far as I am concerned as long as they do some form of work I am not bothered that its paid or not as long as peoples stamp is paid for. I cannot believe comparing Oxfam to Tesco, Tesco is a huge money making machine, Oxfam have no money and rely on donations and good will as do most charities. If the government wanted people to do more voluntary work why not work with charity organisations who offer experience and also don’t force people to do things they cannot do. Look at the high percentages of mentally and physically disabled people unemployed, most cannot find work, not only because of the loopholes they have to jump through to get it including endless interviews (why is there even interviews to do 2p jobs like shelving, they should be given away on first come, first serve basis) Anyone can selve, pack boxes etc – you don’t even have to read and write, plus most disabled can only do certain jobs and in a country where most jobs are customer service and require you to be outgoing, plus most jobs now require people to do the roles of 4-5 people combines unlike the 1950′s no wonder most disabled are unemployed. People only go for jobs they are capable of. Even Tesco shelf stacking isn’t just shelf stacking, most jobs aren’t.

I had to laugh on This Wekk with Andrew Neil, he had a chef in, he was talking rubbish about careers people climbing ladders. Most people don’t want to climb careers ladders they just want a work and a wage. It was presuming everyone wanted a career and capable of multitasking. If you weren’t career minded he wasn’t interested. Yet he said most people start at the bottom which is what they did before careers.There is three things in this country the cult of the individual, the cult of the career and the cult of the job. Careers and jobs, have been elevated to superstardom status, there’s huge expectations most people cannot achieve. Employers hold all the cards. I mean the chef was talking about washing up as a skill, I learnt that skill ages ago at home, its a 2p skill its not like being an electrician etc. Most people already have that skill, anybody can do it, its like self checkouts, I learnt it in less than 1 minute, but they are talking about it as though you need loads of training etc, what rubbish! where does all this training come from and all these training costs most things are picked up quick. Anyway, school, college and university doesn’t require people to self scan or shelve these are only done on a job.

But having said that all jobs are important without the washer upper there would be dirty plates and cups in the restaurant, but some people such as the mentally ill are happy to do that, they have no expectations, so why give those jobs to other people, those jobs should be given to the people who can only do that sort of job. If people have other skills, you are wasting those skills even if that person is washing up. Yet apaprently even the washer upper has to have a degree now, madness!

shouldnt we be reorganising work places so people have more defined roles instead saving money and getting one person to do the job of 4-5 people and shouldn’t we be looking at ways to reorganise work so everyone contributes in their own way?

Work today is too inflexible and everyone is supposed to fit a mold to even do the most basic of thing, which is stopping people actually moving around in society, they want people in work but make jobs as complex and put so many barriers up to do even the most basic of things.

There was plenty of volunteer jobs out there where people get treated much better if only all workplaces were as flexible and as simple and caring as volunteer workplaces

Michael, I agree with some of your points …. it’s the damn CV culture that has taken over and pushes people back away from the chance to talk themselves into a job easily.

I saw This Week also, with the chef guy, and it’s really annoying that they keep focussing on young people, because this Steps to Work programme is for everyone on JSA.

But I disagree with you saying that dishwashing in a resturant is a simple job that anyone can do. Being a kitchen porter in a busy resturant was a realy hard job I found when I was one. There was loads of pressure to do lots of food prep before the kitchen got busy, and then to keep everyone in clean pots, dishes and cutlery as well as making up salads and baguettes as called for – you could only do the job by working flat out for sustained periods and often finished the shift exhausted. The job would only work if the KP had the right attitude.
I think it wouldn’t hurt some young long term unemployed people to experience such a work environment. I look back on the year I worked there very fondly. Some of the people I worked with were great. It was fun. You also see the other people doing their jobs and might think that was something you could do too.

27. Chaise Guevara

@ damon

“But I disagree with you saying that dishwashing in a resturant is a simple job that anyone can do. ”

Hmm. I think this is about the line between “unskilled” and “easy”. There are skills involved in KPing, but they’re not things that people qualify for or write CVs about (in fact, I imagine the number of KPs who had to submit a serious CV could be counted on your fingers).

That doesn’t change the fact that it can be a wearying and stressful job, and no doubt one that sees many people quit out of laziness or frustration. This is one of the reasons that I get annoyed with people who equate “hard-working” with “earns a lot of money”.

There are skills involved in KPing, but they’re not things that people qualify for or write CVs about (in fact, I imagine the number of KPs who had to submit a serious CV could be counted on your fingers).

But in this CV centred hiring culture we have now, they even ask for CVs for the likes of KPing. Certainly at Starbucks. Lots of shop jobs will just ask for CVs to be handed in – even if there was a sign put up in the window. I undersatnd why they do it, but I hate it too. I hate being asked for a CV, because mine isn’t a good one. There’s huge gaps in it.

I would say that having a good KP is a bit like having a good goalkeeper. Not the most glamorous position, but a useless KP will habve a kitchen grind to a halt.. And that a lot of the young long term unemployed youths (like those who were rioting in august) would not be up to the job. You really have to bust a gut sometimes with the workload and people asking you to do stuff. The CV thing lets employers sift through ”the chaff” so to speak. If you’ve never worked by the age of 20, they probably don’t want to know you.

daemon, your missing my point. kps do more than just dishwashing as you have said, they do preparation etc. so therefore kps dont just wash up they do lots of other things as well. what happens if there was just a few people washing up, a number preparing etc? the reason why is either they dont want to pay wages for all those people or they believe in multitasking getting one person to do loads of jobs. i work in museums counting promotions and it gets extremely busy at times, as well as data entry, envelope stuffing, i also look after my dad including cooking. many jobs are both mental and physical and dull, but that doesnt mean you make them dull. its people that make environments and work harsh. they believe people wouldnt do them of they didnt make them harsh, i disagree. organisation and efficiency is everything. museums arent harsh yet get work done. restaurants like museums rely on customers. people dont go for jobs they cannot do. without customers there would be no need for them. i personally wouldnt go into that chefs restaurant he wouldnt serve the portion size plus good food is good food i can find elsewhere. even if i did i wouldnt expect the kitchen staff to run around like nutters to get me a meal. if things are done right and organised nobody has to run around. that does mean they are slow or mega fast. its totally wrong to think people have to be paid to do good jobs and take pride. what matters is pride and helping each other. if you do home ironing and rush it you end up with poorly ironed clothes. i have been in loads of restaurants and saw people cleaning while your eating, smudged glasses etc. cleanliness is what most customers want. customers do want hot food and good portions, as well as helpful staff. expectations and demands have changed i suppose which has meant people all running around. yet in other cafes restaurants abroad i have found waiters more respected, do good jobs and are laid back. they see if as professions and take pride. in japan waiters/waitresses would dream of having tips as they.think they do jobs and are well paid and respected. no jobs are better than others i cannot understand cleaners etc getting such bad wages.

i live an incredibly poor area in the west mids. the state of the place is disgusting and yet little money needs to be spent on it. theres no community pride. pride in environment and thats not young people to blame. nobody rioted where i live, theres nothing to knick. yet equally most shops seem to work to the lowest common denominated and few ever go into schools, colleges or universities to make themselves known, they dont seem to be bothered only concentrate on what they do. no wonder young people arent engaged. most people are individually focused. people just blame others and no collective responsibility. of coarse people take personal responsibility too and pay for their actions but nobody is born to smash environments. i live in a former industrial heartland, factories closed, skills lost yet no major employers took the factories place, communities split up, shops closed. but this is besides the point. not all those rioting were young, it was a mix of people and a mix of reasons. one thing is certain most couldnt care for those buinesses or environment, why? only people not connected to things smash things up

in the 1950s there was for most factory workers few interviews certainly not for school leavers, most of it was a brief chat, certainly no cvs, i would say as my mom said the work was as hard if not harder than a restaurant, certainly physically. my parents did great jobs with no cvs. my parents remember employers going on the street and asking people if they wanted work. after all employment is two ways. those employers also took responsibility and a stake in the local community, training all people including the young. by no means were all places perfect and my parents work place wasnt perfect but there was a different attitude and of coarse workplaces were more like families, they were also much more local and near places and looked at what people were good and bad at. there was also a different attitude to getting the disabled into work, plus different attitudes to the elderly who were not seen in the way to careers and a burden. if there was different attitudes and work organisation there would be no need for many disabled to be on dla, most are forced to have to rely on it when they dont want to. point is cvs measure who is good at cvs not who are good at jobs. you only know whether you like the place and they get on with you and whether your suited by doing a job if you try it. in the past people tried things out left on friday and started work monday somewhere else. like a job trial really. nobody applies for something they cannot do. how do they know somebody can do something or not by a piece of paper. people can lie, sell themselves by chatting their way in. people with certain conditions have no chance despite the fact of being a good worker. who with physically or mentally induced anxiety goes for a customer service job. they wouldnt be suited, but that doesnt mean they cannot do other things. with so many jobs involving different tasks no wonder they dont apply. most of the rules around work is to control people not to get things done right including health and safety, common sense is out the window. everybody in our society can do something except the severely disabled, if they are allowed to do it and things are organised right. expecting everyone to fit moulds and reach certain levels is madness, everyone should start at the bottom and work up. the systems dont work, infact many things in this country dont as we have made things so complex.

places are only the way they are because people choose it to be like that. people think their attitude is right because it is a social norm, but social norms have always changed and they will continue to. its like the idea ties somehow made people work better but thats never,been proved. people get upset by peopke questioning norms but if that norm makes no logical sense it should be questioned. as long as somewhere does a good job and takes pride i dont care what they wear or if they take slightly longer. they are always apologising in mcdonalds when they dont serve it within a set time (driven by management) but i keep saying dont worry (i take it out anyway), but they are put under so much pressure in my eyes for no reason. as long as it tastes nice and is hot (when eating in) its fine.

before people had jobs, did work now they have careers, we teach children just doing a work is not enough they have to have careers, get ahead, achieve, gain skills, so many mixed messages. people can have a job do work and have no ambition, no career, there are many where i live do this, purely for some money, why must everyone climb career ladders, there arent top jobs. humans have always invented, did things well but they didnt need a career, we cannot all reach the top!

32. Chaise Guevara

@ 31 michael

Well, it’s generally assumed that you’ll be more happy if you have a well-paying and fulfilling job, and by getting a good education, climbing the career ladder and so on, you’ll have more chance of achieving these things. True, for some people the dream will be more of a burden than a blessing, but it still seems like a fairly good thing to tell children.

Also, bear in mind that the people telling children this stuff are generally gonna be their parents, who have an understandable tendency to believe and/or hope that their kids will “reach the top”.

None of that’s to disparage people who don’t want to push themselves to get high-power jobs. I’m not a particularly driven person myself, and as far as I’m concerned, if your job and pay are enough to make you happy, fair play and well done, regardless of where people think you sit in the pecking order.

33. Chaise Guevara

@ 28 damon

“But in this CV centred hiring culture we have now, they even ask for CVs for the likes of KPing. Certainly at Starbucks.”

Bah! I knew I was on shaky ground basing my thinking on anecdotal evidence (i.e. my life), but I totally failed to consider corporations, who are probably more likely than your local pub to require a CV. Fair point.

Although there’s the question of how seriously those CVs are taken. You know those damnfool 10-page application forms they have now, inviting you to write 100 words on a time that you resolved a tricky situation via teamwork and so on? How many employers do you reckon bother reading them after the first two or three applications? I wouldn’t.

“I would say that having a good KP is a bit like having a good goalkeeper. Not the most glamorous position, but a useless KP will habve a kitchen grind to a halt.. ”

Agreed, good analogy.

“And that a lot of the young long term unemployed youths (like those who were rioting in august) would not be up to the job. You really have to bust a gut sometimes with the workload and people asking you to do stuff. The CV thing lets employers sift through ”the chaff” so to speak. If you’ve never worked by the age of 20, they probably don’t want to know you.”

Well, I don’t know. Personality probably counts for a lot. KP jobs aren’t glamorous or particularly desirable, and I doubt employers put a lot of effort into advertising for them. Ergo, applicants are likely to get an interview, and at that point personality becomes important. And in the case of privately owned businesses, it’s probably a case of “you’ve turned up for a chat, we’re not getting a dodgy vibe off you, you’re hired”.

@pagar: Please explain why you’re human shit.

Oh and let me guess good kids equals those who don’t stand up to being fucked in the ass.

Enjoy your new private police force

Twat.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Mrs VB

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  2. Mrs VB

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  3. Mrs VB

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  4. Mrs VB

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  5. Mrs VB

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  6. Julian Rowley

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  7. Julian Rowley

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  8. Julian Rowley

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  9. Julian Rowley

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  10. Rosie

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  11. Phil Jones

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  12. Kyki Press

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  13. Dave Sharp

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  14. Patron Press - #P2

    #UK : How useful is Tesco ’s u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/Zq9hiQdP

  15. dsugg

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  16. No Jury No Justice

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  17. KAAL Group

    #UK : How useful is Tesco ’s u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/Zq9hiQdP

  18. HouseOfTwitsLab

    RT @sunny_hundal Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/8JHTjyKa

  19. House Of Twits

    RT @sunny_hundal Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/mDAFsIQ3

  20. Serena Turchi

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  21. Chris Penberthy

    RT @sunny_hundal Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/8JHTjyKa

  22. Di

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  23. BevR

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  24. Scott Macdonald

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  25. Peter Underwood

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  26. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/rS9OIpPA

  27. Debbie Jolly

    RT @libcon How useful is Tesco's u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/1rOqNwyw

  28. Fusty Luggs

    Liberal Conspiracy – How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/rS9OIpPA

  29. Damon Kowolski

    Don't hold your breath for an apology from Iain Duncan Smith for his lies about the Workfare programme. http://t.co/YuHzonBS

  30. Mo Gray

    RT @FairTrial: RT @sunny_hundal: Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/1Araclp7

  31. Wesley Rykalski

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  32. GeekPoet

    RT @libcon: How useful is Tesco's u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/TEw57PX2 < Should've done this in first place. But better late than never.

  33. McGinOxford

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  34. Jason Brickley

    How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/g6SoGaEk

  35. Pamela Heywood

    How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/sY6RUQYw

  36. Nick H.

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  37. Janet Graham

    Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare yesterday confirms that it *is* mandatory for jobseekers http://t.co/bOR1W09Q

  38. Angus Carruthers

    Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal: How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? #workfare http://t.co/v00WOE62 via @libcon

  39. Martell Thornton

    How useful is Tesco's u-turn on Workfare? | Liberal Conspiracy: Richard Brasher, CEO of Tesco UK, said “We know … http://t.co/y00jUvDH

  40. Welfare Advocate

    How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/dKD6w6uy

  41. Pam

    How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YItSkNnQ via @libcon

  42. Rebecca Devitt

    How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YItSkNnQ via @libcon

  43. anne

    How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/h0rb9cCr via @libcon

  44. David Cameron congratulates Tesco on massive job creation plans « This Day – One Day

    [...] How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? (liberalconspiracy.org) [...]

  45. Mumbling Malone

    RT @WelfareAdvocacy How useful is Tesco’s u-turn on Workfare? http://t.co/lZHfZvas . Better late than never





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.