Cait Reilly Birmingham Uni. student suing the govenment

by JohnJ on 11 January 2012 16:06

I can't believe this story...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085142/Unemployed-graduate-sues-ministers-forced-stack-shelves-Poundland.html

Some people have to get real. Surely if there was anything better on offer than Poundland they would offer it?

Suing seems wrong. She's been given bad advice I think.

by Heidi on 12 January 2012 09:44

It is a little more complicated than that, plus your source is the daily mail-never friends of students, jobseekers or the human rights act! I'm not sure suing the government is going to help but if you read the following story you will see that she was on jobseekers and was told she would lose her jobseekers if she did not work for free for poundland (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/16/young-jobseekers-work-pay-unemployment). This is wrong on so many levels-If she is a jobseeker and poundland have employment then surely she should be paid for her time there, it is NOT work experience stacking shelves in poundland! I've worked in shops for years and in all honesty you don't need to work three weeks unpaid on full time hours to learn about retail and you certainly don't have to be a graduate to do this job! Secondly, the government are allowing massive businesses like Asda, Poundland and Primark to use the welfare system to get free labour, this is wrong. They are making enormous profits and are already exploiting people in the processes of their businesses (ie sweatshops, poor farming etc). Therefore, she is working long hours to help make massive businesses massive profits. There are so many people in the country seeking employment and are prepared to exchange their labour for money and here are big industries being allowed to use 'slave' (Not literally slave labour but is still exploitation) labour to help make them profits. The government are NOT protecting young graduates, they are not protecting jobseekers, they are just protecting big companies. She is only suing because she knows this can make a story, what about those who have absolutely no option but to take on unpaid work?
If Poundland has jobs, then pay for those working in those jobs. The government are working hard to divide the country into two camps-those who support jobseekers and the welfare state and those who do not.

by JohnJ on 12 January 2012 10:51

Heidi, if stacking shelves in Poundland isnt suitable for a graduate...what exactly is a graduate job?

I'm not denying there is not some opportunism by companies like Poundland in order to cash in on a bit of free labour. Its a scheme they have been presented with by the government and they've taken it. I don't want to get into the ethics of employing people for free (well its not actually free we are picking up the bill) ALL companies are run primarily to make profit. Poundland is no different.

Cait Reilly according to the article was working in a museum but then gave it up to work at Poundland. ‘I was actually doing something that was helping me work towards a job and was taken away from that to do something of no value to me. It was very frustrating’
Cait Reilly, geology graduate

She says she was "taken away" like some men came in and bundled her into the back of a van!
We all have choices. She didn't have to start at Poundland and I'm sure a part-time evening bar job pays more than weekly Jobseekers allowance.

Now she is back at the museum and is suing the government for the experience scheme. When I graduated I worked in Boots and various restaurants waiting tables and washing up for 18 months. We've ALL done it...we've all been exploited but we develop and do things to make sure in future we arent exploited, by getting yourself out of that situation. We dont start getting legal.

She's just made it more difficult for other graduates and made other employers potentially think twice about joining this scheme.

by Kayla on 12 January 2012 11:59

John, the problem with her situation was that, as she says, she was volunteering in a museum to develop skills relevant to an actual job in a museum. Therefore, she was volunteering (ie. unpaid) while on Jobseekers. This was indeed "taken away" from her because she was told she would lose her Jobseekers if she didn't take up the unpaid position in Poundland. The difference between museum VS. Poundland seems pretty obvious to me, one actually gives her relevant skills and knowledge, while the other consists of stacking shelves and sweeping up. I'm not sure in what way doing the latter says "graduate job" to you, because it has absolutely nothing to do with having a degree and is not even a job for that matter, because it is unpaid. It was unfair for the Jobcentre to make her quit her museum position that was actually leading somewhere to send her on an unpaid so-called placement in Poundland where she learns no skills, while threatening to take away her benefits.

by JohnJ on 12 January 2012 12:24

Kayla, okay that explains the situation slightly more but I'm still finding it difficult to have ANY sympathy for her.

She's trying to imply that she was being held to random - "take the Poundland job or else"...as far as I'm aware Jobseekers allowance at about £56 a week! "I really want my relevant museum job but I don't want to loose the benefit of £56 quid" You can't want it that much! You left.

Surely anyone with any sense, sticks out the opportunity she is passionate about (museum job) and then gets a part-time job in a bar it the evenings and makes up the loss of £56 in about two shifts. Okay there are no guarantees with the museum job but the Poundland job want a training scheme either. At least its something she wants to do.

Instead, its the governments (I'm not a fan of any particular government) fault and they are getting sued....cause I'm a bit of a numpty. What happened to personal responsiblity for your decisions and understanding what's best for four career?

The only person she has to blame is herself. I stand by my point that she will make it more difficult for other graduates by making other good companies think twice about entering this scheme because of the potential negative repercussions.

by ColinW on 13 January 2012 06:30

John,

When it comes down to it, no matter how much she wants the museum job, she needs the money even more, to buy such vital items as food and shelter. You say she could take bar work, but do you not think the Job Centre would have offered it if it was available? With such high unemployment, even bar and waiting jobs require experience now.

I also think it's a good thing to make companies think about joining this slavery scheme. If they expect someone to do a job, they can pay someone to do it - graduates are not a slave labour force to be exploited by large greedy companies.

by Heidi on 13 January 2012 19:25

Collin and Kayla are absolutely right. These businesses are exploiting something the government are allowing them to exploit and no one is actually sticking up for for those who ARE being exploited. Do you really beleive working for free, stacking shelves is career development? Do you believe this will lead her to find a job where she will become a contributing member of society.

John, you said that we are footing the bill so if you think about it the taxpayer is LITERALLY paying their taxes to Poundland can employ staff? It is totally morally wrong and actually will not solve any problems with the economy.

by JohnJ on 14 January 2012 13:36

Heidi and Colin and everyone else in this discussion I understand what you're getting at, but I think there are some underlying issues which you touch on in your posts which I need to expose.

1. There is no such thing as a 'graduate quality standard job' the reason I know this is because if you go to the job centre there is no 'graduate quality section'. What this means is that there are jobs which a graduate could do upon leaving uni...but probably lots of others who didn't go to uni could do to. But there aren't as you'd expect jobs 'reserved' for graduates. It's frustrating I know...and it might not have been 'sold' by your largely useless college careers advisor as the case but that's just the way it is. This might sound harsh but you aren't entitled to a 'good job'...you are entitled to go for a job that's on offer and if there is nothing on offer you have to start at the bottom like everyone else or travel and ignore it or do more studying.
Heidi the idea that you can't stack shelves and be a contributing member of society is pretty ignorant and insulting to those who work bad hours behind the scenes so you can grab your alphabet pasta shapes off the shelf.

2. Everyone is exploited initially. The idea is that you work your way into a position where you are not exploited or exploited less. That's called 'life'.

3. Everyone is calling for the scheme to be scrapped because of this Poundland story. That's really constructive, what about the few people who are getting a benefit from the scheme? What's your master plan for getting youth unemployment down? It easy and lazy to shout scrap it...but what's the alternative? I'd like any of you to suggest one...it's not easy.

I'm not trying to be mean or controversial for the sake of it but I think some people need a reality check from some people who have been there. The sooner you get it the better position you'll be to cope and understand your situation and do something positive about it and make better decisions.

Thanks.

by Nick on 14 January 2012 21:35

In reply to John.

Firstly I think it's worth noting that I have recently graduated, I am gaining relevant experience in my chosen career path during the week and work part time at the weekends in a retail position. I work seven days a week, but am only paid for two of them. Therefore I speak from an equally authoritative position as you seem to place yourself. Plus negates any need for me to have a 'reality check'.

Whilst the others make all the arguments in favour of the student, I do agree with you that suing seems a little over the top and ill judged. That said, someone has to make a stand at some point, and at least it gets a bit more publicity for the rather abused 'graduate work force' (as we have been termed by others above). I do question where she is getting the money for this case though.

1. If there is no such thing as a 'graduate standard job', why are there so many websites targeted at us, an why do I keep getting sent emails by said sites and calls from headhunters offering me graduate specific roles?

2. You say that 'anyone with any sense would stick out the museum job' and find part time work. Perhaps the museum work was five days a week, that would make what little part time work there is available nigh on impossible to get. You need experience and flexibility even to get the most menial of part time jobs now. I got mine by virtue of having five years previous experience in the role. Whilst I do not think this is a bad thing, it does make it very hard to marry this with unpaid work experience. Never mind rising living costs!

3. You say everyone gets exploited 'that's called life'. Maybe many do, but that doesn't mean that it is right, justified or should be allowed to continue. It seems ironic that a generation who got their university education for free can impose such high fees on those currently entering education, and then expect them to work for free after graduating. Whilst I understand that every area of society needs to share this burden equally, most other sectors seem to be contributing much less than threefold.

4. You say she has a choice. Yes, either take benefits or have no
money to live from. As other people have made clear above, the choice she has made concerns a rather more complicated set of facts than you seem to suggest.

5. You say it will deter other 'good companies' from entering the scheme. I think you may need to rethink your definition of good if it includes the likes of Poundland and other companies who have little to offer
Graduates and exploit their free work.

Whilst I agree with you that the theory of this project is sound, the management of
It has been exceptionally poor. I do believe that those coming out of universities with 'Mickey mouse degrees' (what he did to offend people I will never know) expecting to be handed a cushty, high paying Job on a silver plate are in for a shock. But at the same time there should be relevant paid experience (albeit minimum wage) for those with credible qualifications willing to work hard and carve out a career. It has never been and will never be right to exploit any sector of the population, yet still the old and the young are targeted. Whilst I disagree with the method, the voice needs to be heard.

by doubledareyou on 15 January 2012 11:25

f**k me....graduates really do think they got the step up on everyone else these days. the women in question is pathetic to be sueing. end of. btw im a graduate who "stacks shelves".

by mike on 15 January 2012 16:47

Nick I completely agree with your argument no sector of society should be exploited and the offer of upaid work experience in my opinion is both exploitation of the graduate population and highly unprofessional. But I think that many of you seem to have missed the point. This government scheme was set up to attempt to provide the long term unemployed with work experience which may lead to a job. Yet the graduate in question graduated very recently (so surely has not yet qualified as long term unemployed) and as this article demonstrates, has the qualifications necessary to at least gain work experience within the sector she wishes to pursue a career. Clearly offering her unpaid work experience in Poundland was an error of judgement given that she is already partaking in work experience that would be more likely to benefit her cv and career.

This government scheme has been developed to provide work experience to individuals who are long term unemployed and have little or no qualifications (as it would have a far greater impact on their employment prospects). The case put forward in this article clearly demonstrates the incompetence of the staff at the job centre in which she was enrolled and their failure to act with any real thought regarding the implementation of the scheme.

In my opinion the real tragedy in this case would be if the scheme was scrapped after such poor publicity as if implemented properly it could be highly beneficial.

by JohnJ on 15 January 2012 20:29

Nick I agree with you, Mickey Mouse gets a bad rap. He aint done nuffink that would merit such a bad rep. He needs a bit of decent PR.

Nick in response to your other points...

1. The reason you get calls and emails is because graduates are seen as a easily accessible group (e.g. easy to contact) who are bright, hungry and ambitious so you get called up! Its nothing to do with the role and jobs specifically. When is the last time you saw a role which said candidate MUST be a University graduate?

2. We cant really speculate about how long she was at the musuem, how many days she worked or her hours. But its a museum! We arent talking heavy manual labour. I go back to my point "people need the money" its £57 a week! Three 7pm-11pm shits in a put would cover that. Its not like its £150 a week which would mean a huge change in circumstances.

3. Exploitstionis just a FACT. Happens to everyone. I'm not saying its right or worng and dont what to get into the etchics...its just the way our society is fundmentally structured. So you either make it work for you and you work the system from the inside...or you sue the arse of anyone you you feel has exploited you. I wouild suggest Miss Reilly is vitually unemplyable now as her attitude sucks. Her next interview will probably play out like this:

Potential Employer: "So Miss Reilly from you previous role tell us what you enjoyed and what you found challenging."
Miss Reilly: "I would at Poundland it was a joke I hated it."
Potential Employer: "Oh tell me more..."
Miss Reilly: "Yeah they had me stacking shelves and sweeping up. So I sued the Goverment who put me on the scheme in the first place. I got loads of coverage it was great."
Potential Employer: "So would you say you were quite letigious them?"
Miss Reilly: "Possiblu, if I dont think I'm treated fairly"
Potential Employer: "Anyway, lovely to meet you...security will see you out"

Finally by 'good' I didnt mean Poundland. I meant the other potential and existing decent employers who are considering hiring a graduate through this scheme who want to give graduates a chance and have good worthwhile meaningful opportunities. Who are now thinking about alternatives because if they hire a graduate as a temp or P/T they my turn round and sue them! Thanks for that. She's just made it harder for herself AND everyone else. Well done!

by jimmy on 16 January 2012 16:49

Sorry, this girl wants to be paid by the tax payer to work for free in her dream job?!? The country can not afford to be paying benefits to people that are able to work but don't want to, because it doesn't suit their needs. The country needs to stop people being on benefits (that can work) and this is a way to do that!

She can, if she wishes, work for free but why does the tax payer have to pay for it? Yes, she needs to be able to eat and pay rents (if she doesn't live with her parents) so get a paying job and save up some money!

I am a graduate now. I would love to work in film, so I am working in a supermarket as well as a bar and saving money up so I can take a pay cut to get my dream job. At no point do I think it is my right to be paid by the tax payer to have my dream job - I have to earn it!

Why can not she work in the Museum on Saturdays (get some experience) and then work in a paying job in the week? There are jobs in the supermarket I work in!

by Billy Bob on 16 January 2012 17:30

I don't understand why most of your guys are agreeing with Cait Reilly's arguement!!!

I am finding it really hard to get a graduate job/internship (60+ applications and 7 to interview stages), yet there is no way I would even consider going on the doll unless I had no choice at all. Maybe it is the way I was brought up, but there is plenty of jobs out there were you can earn better than minimum wage and certainly better than the £57 a week. Yes they aren't graduate jobs and yes they maybe a bit rubbish (So far I have had several bar jobs,worked in a shop, worked in a post room and a hearing aid factory - That was the worst!!!) but at least I am earning money and not a drain on scociety. I would be happy to get an unpaid internship (If I could get one) during the week and then would work nights and weekends to supplement my income. I think she needs to have a reality cheque, one that she can CASH!!!

I agree with John, I do think it is a bit of a shame that she has done this and it totally gives across the wrong message about us grads to the rest of the country. Lets face it Daily Mail readers do tend be right wing prats, but unfortunately they are a lot of them! Therefore, when a story like this runs a lot of country don't like us. Don't forget there are a lot of unemployed people out there, who don't have degrees who have very little options and this is the reason for this scheme, so they can hopefully can get some other form or employment. Trust me, I have worked with people like this, who have absolutely no options ahead of them apart from the job that they are in. The scheme was not for graduates like Cait who cant be arsed to walk down to their local recruitment agency to get any job.

I agree that the working at Poundland for essentially FREE is wrong but, if you left school at 16 and not worked for 3 years. It is at least going to give them some experience to hopefully get a career in retial on a better wage, but that is the point!! It is for people who not worked in year are potentialy abusing the system while they take cash in hand jobs etc NOT GRADS!!!!

Mike you also write like the Job Centre is like some kind of Uni careers service giving out advice on your chosen career path etc, have you ever been in one? Trust me these guys don't give a damn about what career that you want to get into, they just want you to get a job and if you don't you go on the scheme. The Job Centre doesn't have graduate jobs and certainly not in a museum. Yes it was a mistake to put Cait on it, but then it is Cait's mistake to even alow herself to go on the scheme on the first place. If someone offered that to me, the answer would be NO, as I know that it is not intended for someone like me.

by Heidi on 16 January 2012 19:45

My main problem with this scheme is not Cait Reilly but the scheme itself and the fact that WE ARE PAYING FOR POUNDLANDS STAFF!
There are millions of people out of work and looking for jobs, possibly at Poundland. If Poundland have vacancies for staff then they should be filling these vacancies with EMPLOYED PAID staff. When I graduated I was looking for a full time job in retail (my part time job in retail, that I was at all the way through my degree, didn't pay enough to live off of.) and the amount of bizarre 'training schemes' and 'apprenticeships' I came across were horrific- Next were offering a forty hour 'apprenticeship' in retail for £80 a week! This is so they can pay less than the minimum wage for their staff. They could employ someone for this position and pay them properly but these schemes are a smokescreen for multimillion pound companies to bend the rules and not pay their staff A LIVING WAGE. Now I have worked in retail for seven years and trust me, you do not have to do an apprenticeship to learn about working in a shop. I was a hairdresser before I took my history of art degree and I earnt £80 a week as a forty hour a week apprentice but at least I was learning a skill. Working in retail, for minimum wage, with customers being rude to you and never getting decent time off over christmas etc is not skilled work!

I don't believe I am owed my 'perfect' job, I am prepared to work extremely hard for my dream job-not all graduates think they are above everyone else!

by ME on 19 January 2012 21:49

I think if you work in the industry of employability you have a much greater insight. Yes there are more people than jobs and yes its competitive at the moment, but ultimately people are being very selective as to what type of job they are willing to accept as many of the believe they are 'above' a particular tpe of job - hence why certain jobs are not filled.

Work experience is invaluable, and ultimately for someone who is long term unemployed - either they dont have suitable experience, or there standards are unrealistic - therefore either way work experience at Poundland or any other store is invaluable in educating people and discouraging people from treating benefits as a way of life!

As I university graduate most of my friends expected to leave Uni and get paid £20,000 a year, well get real, you don't get paid that without the required skills and someo of the basics are customer service skills - like Poundland provides. Well done Poundland giving often very challenging people an opportunity to gain new skills at your company and supporting them through times when they don't turn up, cause problems due to their behaviour and you staff support these volunteers to upskills and have a brighter future. In addition to this there is 'protection' in place to avoid people being 'exploited!'

by Eowyn Rohan on 01 February 2012 23:04

I find it reassuring to note that some contributors support the notion that the unemployed should be complicit in deceit, at considerable cost to the taxpayer and the State.

After all, if on the one hand, an employer saves themselves the onerous burden to employ someone to do a job when they can recruit some Unpaid Intern or Work Placement for the Unemployed candidate, then they save themselves £20K-£30K per annum per job. Unfortunately, this is money which is lost by the State in terms of salary, tax, national insurance. Further, the candidate will have to be supported by the Bank of Mam and Dad or Taxpayer if unemployed. Another £15K per annum per candidate cost to the State. Plus the candidate effectively occupies a job which could be filled by someone who is unemployed - another £15K per annum per candidate cost to the State.

If, by virtue of employers replacing Salaried Jobs with a Slave Based Working Culture, the State is losing something of the order of £50K-£60K per annum per job, isn't there a better way to target investment to increase the take up of available staff ?

by c on 07 February 2012 10:46

You get paid for it? Because she didn't.

by c on 07 February 2012 10:49

So the taxpayer should pay for her to work in poundland instead? I would rather pay towards her museum job.

by LouB on 09 February 2012 17:35

So she had to work in Poundland to keep her JSA? Big deal. I'm a graduate and still work in Asda due to not being able to get a 'graduate' job. There is also a bloke there who was sent from the job centre to work there unpaid or he would lose his JSA. He worked there, he worked well and then was offered full time employment. Now he's off the dole and has a wife that he met through working there. I think that it is fair, if you are on the dole you have to work for free - it is an incentive to get off your lazy arse and find real work. Why do it unpaid when you can do it paid? Too many lazy b****rds out there who want money for nothing. Like it was said before - if she wanted to stay in the museum that much she would have found a way to stay there i.e by finding a bar job, walking dogs etc etc. If she wins then the world is deffo going to pot!! I hope she gets laughed out of court. To think that she gets money for something as stupid as this when men who have lost limbs and life are getting pennies!!! Get a life girl!

by Emily on 11 February 2012 09:56

I don't think this girl's approach to the situation is helpful for other graduates looking for work. I am wholly supportive of standing up for yourself when you feel the system isn't effective, but to
try and obtain financial gain from it is setting a terrible example. There is clearly a lack of spare money going around, yet she's now hoping to get a personal large pay out. If you disagree with the way
in which you have been treated or have concerns over government policy, then you need to fight publicly for your cause my rallying support. She's only serving to alienate herself in this situation.

Having said that, I do think there are serious flaws in how the job centres are distinguishing between candidates. Whilst I disagree that graduates have a divine right to well paid or career enhancing roles,
I do think that the opportunities in this scheme are intended for the benefit of the long-term unemployed, as someone's mentioned above. By offering this Poundland placement to a graduate who has
no intention developing their career in that sector, or indeed is likely to already has the experience to carry out the job if she had wanted to, the placement is not available to someone who has a
genuine need for it. Job centres need to assess more carefully an individual's needs and current situation.

I'm undecided on whether the scheme to get people into work by paying them nothing is a good idea or not. Surely the most rewarding part of working is the pay packet at the end of the month and the feeling of self
sufficiency? I think that's a whole other debate surrounding anyone working for free anywhere. Museums included.

Ultimately, this individual has identified that the system isn't an effective, and I don't think her taking up the placement in Poundland is to the advantage of anyone. It's just a shame that her response has been
to fight for financial gain rather than fight to represent both graduates and the long term unemployed alike.

by Luffs Grad on 14 February 2012 11:52

John, in response to your comment ;

"When is the last time you saw a role which said candidate MUST be a University graduate? "

Well, all the time actually ! Lots of graduates apply for jobs relevant to their degree to the extent that the job is not open to those without one. For example, I am an engineering graduate and apply for jobs as an engineer. You MUST have an engineering degree to be considered for these positions and often a specific type ( mechanical, automotive etc.). These positions are know as Graduate Roles !

by Luffs Grad on 14 February 2012 11:55

Your argument makes no sense. If she takes the pounland scheme, she will be working for free AND still receiving jobs seekers allowance. So either way the tax payer is paying for her. Why not let her spend her time at the museum doing something constructive with her time.

by Alasdair on 19 February 2012 11:36

It would be nice to see a freedom of information request that collated all the jobs actually created from the various schemes under which supposed employers can get cheap labour through the benefit system. Whether that is this unpaid scheme or the various others including so called apprenticeships where the under 20's get a whole £2 an hour.
From annectdotal evidence I doubt it is very much indeed as most are dismised before the time comes where they are meant to get offered a job or the gauranteed interviews never materialise.

However the govermnet publicity to demonise anyone in receipt of benefits seems to be doing well so we can expect to see more of these schemes where large enterprise can cover their peripheral worker requirements through unpaid labour. Unlikely they will ever trust a worker who is only there because they will otherwise lose the money required to live but it is good to get shelf stakers at £53 per week instead of £6 an hour. I wonder how many of those who winge at their taxes being used for benefits would have ever taken a job at that level of return.

The one thing we won't see is a genuine welfare to work scheme using the DLO or Council services to provide training as that would highlight that there is not the jobs at the end of it. Back to the 3million unemployed is an acceptable side effect of a recovering economy I'm afraid and the poor economy being the fault of the work shy instead of the people who ran the credit system along with those in ok paying jobs that kept overextending their credit just because they could and hoped to make a profit of the next mortage they couldn't afford.

by Callum Foxx on 21 February 2012 12:01

I studied Geology at University with Cait. She was a hard working student and she is obviously still working hard (for free, at a museum) in order to help her get the job she would like and has relevant higher education for.

The only people benefiting from this whole episode is poundland. Cait Reilly loses out as she no longer gets the experience she wants, the museum loses out and it makes no difference to the taxpayer. Why not help the graduate who NEEDS help rather than the multi million pound corporation who doesn't need the help.

I appreciate it is tough being a graduate these days (I had a good a University who now works in Greece in a baked bean factory!) but this is not the answer. Should Cait Reilly be suing the government? Maybe not but she should not be encouraged to put herself in a worse off position for her future career path.

by lian on 21 July 2012 10:17

What the actual eff, its bad enough that people who can't be bothered to get a job scrounge off the goverment, but for this girl who has probably just earned a degree to get a pretty-well-off job to be complaining about any aspect of her life is ridiculous, when i first saw this on the news, I couldn't believe how low Britain has got for actually humouring this moron with a case, if i were her lawyer i would have laughed in her face and welcomed her to the real world

by Warren on 22 July 2012 10:37

Yes. This is life! I think for her to take legal action is ridiculous. She should have held on to her volunteer work which would count as relevant experience. I'm sure if she needed money to live she could borrow off family or friends or even speak to her employer or bank. I'm certain banks offer planned overdrafts and accounts to help students and graduates; money in which you can pay back any time without interest as long as you stay within the plan. If you really want something you go for it and find a way.

Also unemployment rates vary depending on where you live and Birmingham isn't a good place. Also for most jobs they require experience and so will be difficult for any body that hasn't worked much or at all previously because of university education. I know people that have been turned down because students aren't in it for the long haul. It's unrealistic for someone with a degree and no experience can walk into a job that pays 5 figure salaries! I think the schemes I'm hearing about benefit younger people who might not have gone to Uni or going into college etc

What do you think?

by Tim on 23 July 2012 14:32

I agree with you Warren!

Most graduates/students have had crappy jobs at some point. All my friends have done part-time stuff in retail at some stage in their youth and as the job market is tough people should be thankful.

The debate here is not so much that working at Poundland is beneath a graduate, I definitely don't think it is! The argument is actually about whether the government should tell someone they have to work somewhere and not get paid, otherwise you get your benefits revoked. Is that right?

Can they blackmail somebody into working. As it says earlier in this post, Poundland are simply taking advantage of a government scheme aimed at getting people off of benefits and in the work place.

by Elaine on 30 July 2012 14:35

"When is the last time you saw a role which said candidate MUST be a University graduate?"

I had an interview last week with a company who only wanted university graduates from English or similar degrees as it is a writing/research role. Of course some positions call for graduates with certain degrees otherwise there would be no point in having an education sysetem or qualifications would there? :)

by Chris on 31 July 2012 07:05

Some of the replies I have seen are ridiculous. Against the human rights act...slave labour...I'm sure the government are happy to stop her working at Poundland at the expense of her JSA. You know much like being paid for an actual job. The last time I checked this requirement wasn't a human right. Next time don't do such a niche degree then refuse to work anywhere else other than your niche job. Additionally don't sue the government because of your own stupidity.

by Claire on 01 August 2012 11:44

As others have pointed out on here already, these schemes are designed for long-term unemployed people. If Cait didn’t fall into this category, then clearly it was an error by the JobCentre involved. We all make mistakes but suing over it?. If she has been unemployed for a long time then she has to be treated like everyone else. There should be a limit as to how long someone who is clearly capable of working can continue to claim benefits.

As for the free work experience itself, and whether this is right. Well…ideally no. But then we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world where there are nearly a million unemployed 16-24 year olds, most of whom do not have the experience and qualifications needed to gain even entry level jobs. I should know. I have worked with long-term unemployed people for nearly 7 years, most recently on a (paid and charity funded) NHS scheme giving entry-level admin jobs to long-term unemployed 18-24 yr olds – most of who had never worked before.. Looking after them was a full time job in itself. Over 9 months, there were daily problems with absenteeism, constant sickness, disciplinary issues etc. Not to mention the pastoral care needed to encourage them to stick at it. What was heartening was that after the 9 months, most of them turned things around. They got used to working and were mentored to help them develop their confidence and seek an alternative life away from benefits.

In return for free labour, companies like Poundland are expected to do the same thing on these schemes. These are not ‘ideal’ employees. If Poundland had to pay for these roles, why would they take on someone who comes with no track record and potentially a lot of problems? They wouldn’t. They’d go for bright and well-presented people (for example, the many graduates who posted on here saying they’ve worked in places like Poundland to support their career aspirations).

In an ideal world, the Government would subsidise these placements. But with a huge deficit and millions of long-term unemployed people, it is simply not realistic. A scheme which gives the long-term unemployed an opportunity to break a vicious cycle should be applauded – not condemned.

by Lucy on 06 August 2012 09:38

Claire you have just summed up everything I was going to say about this issue!

Well said!

by Kelly on 06 August 2012 14:58

The judge made his ruling on this case today: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unpaid-job-schemes-not-a-breach-of-human-rights-says-high-court-8009277.html

I can't say I am surprised that she wasn't awarded anything. Is anyone else?

by JohnJ on 15 February 2013 10:21

If you haven't heard, the appeal judge sided with Cait: http://news.sky.com/story/1051035/poundland-graduate-cait-reilly-wins-appeal

What do people think?

Personally I think it's great that she stood up to the Government and won!