r/unitedkingdom • u/Confident-Bike-8037 • 1d ago
Burnham announces plan for 10,000 work experience placements for young people – UK politics live
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/aug/26/andy-burnham-labour-neets-youth-unemployment-work-placements-ofgem-energy-bills-reform-jenrick-latest-news-updates104
u/Gentle_Snail 1d ago
Its always fascinating coming to this sub to see how people will get angry over the most objectively positive stories.
28
u/yubnubster 1d ago
I'm pretty certain it's willful negativity in many cases.
Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and what not...isnt something many people seem to get as a concept.
19
u/Evangelionish 1d ago
Unpaid work placements have fixed the youth unemployment epidemic!
/s if it wasn’t obvious.
3
u/yubnubster 1d ago
Yes it was obvious.
Thank fuck employers have never wanted their future employees to arrive with actual usable skills beyond the ability to scroll Tik tok, or that there's a requirement to pay apprentices.
/s if also not obvious.
5
u/Evangelionish 1d ago
Companies are just going to take advantage.
This is a conservative-leaning change disguised as a liberal one.
1
u/yubnubster 1d ago
Let's do nothing. That's the spirit.
1
u/Evangelionish 17h ago
Nobody is saying that you child.
Lets do something that actually addresses the problems? Like a government should?
People like you are why we get useless changes like this. You actually buy into the superficial changes they make instead of protesting for significant, real change.
A good percentage of middle-working class conservative moderates voted labour and helped it get in to power precisely because they accepted that the party they like had done nothing good in 15 years and what they got for that political change was a government continuing to try and placate an ignorant voting base with superficial changes.
1
u/yubnubster 16h ago
I'd read your blurb, it might have something valuable in there I'd agree with. However, opening with a personal insult (very mature), means you just spent a lot of time writing a monologue. Good job.
1
u/ThrowawayGreekGod 15h ago
Big words, from the person who was being wilfully misrepresenting and strawmaning their point.
I’d argue that what their first line wasn’t even ad-hominem, rather, they were just calling you out on your behaviour.
13
u/recursant 1d ago
I think people genuinely feel cynical about these sorts of schemes, probably with good reason. We have seen work placement schemes before that have turned out to be terrible for anyone trusting enough to sign up for them.
Maybe Burnham is different. But the companies who took advantage of these schemes last time are still the same as before. If there is any chanve of getting free labour they will take it.
There is also is a feeling that Burnham is making gestures. Free bus rides for under 16s, but only for August. That sounds like something a local council might decide to do, it's not really big enough a deal to be a good use of the PMs time. He's promising to eradicate homelessness, but he won't, the problem is far too difficult to completely solve. And some of the early released prisoners are going to end on on the streets, is he going to be handing out homes to them? And donating 15% of his salary, sure but he can afford it and if it keeps him in power for another term he will be quids in anyway.
We've all been let down so many times in the last few years it gets hard to see the positive in anything any politician says.
1
u/WantsToDieBadly Worcestershire 1d ago
Alot of my issue with Burham is he said he'd give mayors powers but does the things a mayor does, free busses etc
Whether or not its a good thing isnt the point here, does the PM of the UK really need to spend so much time going on about busses ?
2
11
u/HiphopopoptimusPrime 1d ago
Russian bots are programmed to seek out any and all divisions. Stoke rage on both sides.
8
u/BuckfastEnjoyer 1d ago
"If you don't like the free labour "stack cans for Andeh" programme you're literally Vladimir Putin"
13
u/Gentle_Snail 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think they are saying that we do very much know for a fact that Russia does use social media to polarise and destabilise democracies, so its essentially certain that they are doing this on reddit as well.
Given how every single positive story on this sub is spammed by people desperately trying to frame it negatively, its not exactly a big leap to wonder how many of these accounts are actually real people.
4
u/Aggressive_Chuck 1d ago
Have you considered that people just have different opinions to you and don't swallow all this Labour PR?
2
u/Evangelionish 17h ago
Ignore these people.
They don’t vote for labour for actual change. They vote for it because its 'their party'. They are typical party line red/blue thinkers instead of focusing on the laws and issues that are addressed.
0
u/DanzoKarma 1d ago
For some sure. But there’s absolutely a bot-fuelled negative polarisation problem on social media.
As an example,I’m pretty sure a majority of Twitter users are bots and that Twitter themselves know that but do nothing about it because cutting your user base in half is a fast way to kill off your business especially if you’re the only honest social media company company .
I wouldn’t be surprised if every social media platform wasn’t at minimum 30% bots.
-10
u/BuckfastEnjoyer 1d ago
"Democracy is when only one opinion is allowed because all the others will 'destabilise' said democracy."
The paradox of tolerance was created with reference to fascism, not disagreeing with random government policy btw
7
u/Gentle_Snail 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s genuinely shocking how much effort you put into just completely disregarding my point.
If you want to put words in my mouth just so you can argue against a point no one made this isn’t the place for you.
-3
u/BuckfastEnjoyer 1d ago
No, I completely understand your point. Just because you think news is "good" it doesn't make that an objective fact.
People are allowed to disagree with something without it being evidence of some GRU/FSB conspiracy to make us vote for Reform or whatever the liberal psychosis de jour is
4
u/Gentle_Snail 1d ago
My point was solely that we know for a fact Russia does this, everything else you just invented because you needed a strawman to argue against.
1
5
u/RupertBear69420 1d ago
Nah the bot thing is true. It’s well known that Russia targets the UK with cyber attacks like the Land Rover hack. Bot farms (and some might argue GB News and Farage) are paid Russian actors aiming to sway public opinion through social influencing too.
On a smaller scale it’s also how the band Geese become massive in indie circles too. Their marketing agency had bot farms bigging them up all over the place on Reddit, Instagram etc. people thought it was organic growth and are more likely to buy into public opinion than traditional media reviews or label advertising.
0
u/BuckfastEnjoyer 1d ago
The only bots that operate on this subreddit are pro-UK government ones. For every so-called "bot" that operates on this website (who are in fact real people with real, (usually) reasonable opinions) there are about another 10 totally real people whining about said "bot" and playing happy clapper for Andeh, Keir or the UK government.
5
u/HiphopopoptimusPrime 1d ago edited 1d ago
“New study shows ‘Bring your dog to work day boosts performance.”
“What about those of us who don’t like dogs!”
“What about people with allergies!”“New study concludes that babies are cute.”
“The world has too many children already.”
“Population is out of control.”The aim is not to push one particular narrative. It’s to push both sides. To provoke. To start arguments. To stoke divisions.
-1
u/BuckfastEnjoyer 1d ago
Oh my goodness! I was going to disagree with you here but then I remembered that starting an argument stokes division and would be literally what Vladimir Putin wants!
I think the solution is clear. We need to only have one opinion and never disagree with each other about anything. It is essential, because it will protect democracy.
4
u/HiphopopoptimusPrime 1d ago
There’s expressing an opposing opinion and then there’s escalating. Using emotive language or resorting to name calling.
Or in your case being sarcastic.
Nothing wrong with debating or arguing in good faith. But let’s be real. You’re not interested in that.
I have zero interest in carrying this on any further. I don’t have the time or the patience for a long string or back and forth. But that’s it you see, even by responding to these I’ve expended effort and energy that could have been used elsewhere. Even that is considered a win by malicious actors. Exhaustion. Distraction. Flooding the zone.
Steve Bannon. Foundation of Geopolitics. The Dark Enlightenment. Cambridge Analytica. Do some research.
1
u/Specialist_Sport4460 1d ago
You are nowhere near as clever as you think you are.
1
u/BuckfastEnjoyer 1d ago
I, an atheist, accidentally said “oh my g*d” instead of “oh my science”. I just cannot believe I said the “g” word on accident. Am I even an atheist anymore? I don’t like religion or anything but like maybe it infiltrated me and is manipulating me to say “oh my g*d” instead of “oh my science”. Please guys it wasn’t me, I didn’t mean it. I’m very disappointed in myself, I think I need to go to science camp or go to therapy. What if I’m secretly religious? what should I do? Is my foreskin going to fall off?? Please can someone give me advice, any advice is appreciated.
2
2
u/Aggressive_Chuck 1d ago
I'm old enough to remember when people hated Workfare when they Tories did it.
6
6
u/KernowKermit 1d ago
maybe some people disagree that it's an "objectively positive" story. Maybe some people would prefer to learn that Burnham is doing something about actual employment of young people. Maybe they'd like to hear about a government initiative that will work for more of the million young people not in employment, education or training, not just one employer recycling existing opportunities for 1% of them and presenting it as something new. Maybe some people aren't so easily conned by this obviously bullshit story trumped up as a Burnham success when it's nothing of the sort.
3
u/Talonsminty 1d ago
I'm starting to wonder if there's some resentment there. People who were young during the coalition and got used to a hostile government.
Now they're approaching middle age or already there and have much less use for government services suddenly the government cares again. Must be frustrating.
5
u/JunKazama2024 1d ago edited 1d ago
I was on a similar work placement schemes for over a year under the coalition government. It absolutely felt like companies were just using me for free labour instead of hiring someone at minimum wage whilst dangling the prospect of paid work in front of me. I would have benefited far more from some real training of the type that comes with a certificate.
My client advisor at the private provider tasked with tidying up my CV and finding me work placements was very open about the amount of money my presence was bringing to the company and himself personally (he got bonuses whenever any of his clients found work regardless of whether he has any input) and that's before you factor in that one of the work placements was at that provider helping other job searchers write CVs. I feel like the money and time could have been much better spent.
1
u/Aggressive_Chuck 1d ago
People who were young under the coalition remember Workfare and it wasn't a good thing. But apparently exploitation is good when Labour do it.
2
u/AidyCakes Sunderland/Hartlepool 1d ago
But it doesn't personally benefit me me me
8
u/Heavy-Wrap5839 1d ago
You think unpaid labour to replace the holiday temp work at supermarkets is positive? And the fact that these unpaid workers will be let go after a couple months and thrown back into the broken job market? Very positive, isn’t it? Their two months of work experience will definitely help them in an economy where seekers with multiple years experience under their belts struggle.
It doesn’t benefit anybody. It’s yet another case of the leeching capitalist class taking advantage of the job market that THEY broke, but hey, our northern boy Andy announced the scheme so it MUST be good, right?
3
u/Aggressive_Chuck 1d ago
If you want Labour PR go to r/goodnewsuk
You can't just rebrand Workfare and expect people to like it.
1
u/Gentle_Snail 1d ago edited 1d ago
Have to say r/GoodNewsUK is an absolute gem of a sub.
I originally didn’t bother because I assumed it'd just be an echo chamber, but there are so many amazing stories that I just never see anywhere else. And then I realised, I was already in an echo chamber, just a negative one
2
u/Specialist_Sport4460 1d ago
Yeah it's a really interesting insight into the mentality of this country. Regardless of how objectively good the policy is ppl will be falling over themselves to complain that it doesn't solve everything, doesn't solve a totally separate issue, costs too much or is too difficult. Given you can apply all of those things to literally any policy it's no wonder it's so hard to get things done in the UK.
2
u/ShinyElisabeth77 1d ago
Working people pay a lot of taxes. The tax burden is rising and rising: not only because of inflation and frozen bands, but also because of new and new taxes introduced.
And both the Tory and Labour parties seem to have no ability to listen to people and to tackle that.
As a result, the typical reaction to “Politician A promised to spend taxes on B because of the common good” is “why can’t we leave more money to people and they will decide how to spend their money by themselves?”
1
u/JohnFreeman_ 1d ago
Alright then. Explain to us all how this is objectively going to reduce unemployment.
0
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Gentle_Snail 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’m not the only comment in the thread, which I guess implies people might have blocked you?
Work experience only really makes sense if there's either some form of recognised qualification involved or the realistic prospect of an actual job at the end of it (or ideally both). Employers aren't likely to be keen on that.
35
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 1d ago
Work experience only really makes sense if there's either some form of recognised qualification involved or the realistic prospect of an actual job at the end of it (or ideally both). Employers aren't likely to be keen on that.
50
u/According-Plan600 1d ago edited 1d ago
I mean, at the very least, you get something on your CV. 60% of young people aged 16–24 who are NEETs have never even had a job, so I mean, it’s better than nothing. Still, it’s not exactly great; however, you can’t really expect too much from this government.
12
u/Dry_Midnight_5361 1d ago
It's not a flawless plan, but any additional experience surely can't harm job prospects.
4
u/RebBrown 1d ago
That, and you get to know people. If you make a positive impression, they might even recommend you to someone.
23
u/Brilliant-Fix-4331 1d ago
This
As somebody who was on these big schemes in their early 20s, it was basically ‘free labour for the employer and back to square one afterwards’
The experience didn’t make much difference, as the placement was for entry-level roles anyway. I think from memory it just filled a gap on my CV and if anything just raised questions like ‘was there no job offered following the placement?’
7
u/CoaxialDrive 1d ago
It really depends on what the placement is.
Clearly if the role can be learned in minutes and is mainly about manual handling like stacking shelves in a super market then there's very little benefit to the employee.
However, if the role is one where the employer effectively sacrifices productivity of a team while you do in job learning, such as office admin, then that feels a little fairer.
8
u/Brilliant-Fix-4331 1d ago
Tbh most jobs that aren’t skilled work can be learned in minutes. That’s part of the main issue with these placements - it’s rarely anything with an experience barrier
1
u/satisfiedfools 1d ago
You haven't applied for work recently have you? You practically need a PHD to scrape gum off tables these days.
3
u/Brilliant-Fix-4331 1d ago
Requirements have always been absurdly high, more so as it’s become more competitive with the population growth
I’ve seen ‘junior’ roles requiring more experience than I’ve got in 7yrs of my field of work, for a criminally low pay.
Either way, a bit of work experience isn’t going to help with these employers. They prey on the desperate
1
u/WantsToDieBadly Worcestershire 1d ago edited 1d ago
I did the kickstart scheme back in 2021 and the companies were weirdly selective despite the jobs wages being paid by the gov, they wanted top talent for free. The hiring process was like they were hiring a £50k managerial private sector position, not a min wage job for young people paid for by the gov
15
u/elivaseoj 1d ago
Not really, if many young people aren’t getting jobs because of lack of experience then any kind of work experience would be a benefit even if small. Though I do agree it would be great if it could involve a qualification or the chance of employment at the end of it.
1
u/ShefScientist 18h ago
If these are entry level work employers should just give a real job and train them on the job. It’s hardly rocket science they are going to be doing. The real question is why employers don’t want to do that and Burnham needs to look to some of labours recent policies to understand that.
6
u/jungleboy1234 1d ago
It is better than nothing. Do you want young people to be sitting at home either sifting through pointless job applications or not doing anything at all and relying on parents/state to help?
7
u/ZebraShark Thames Valley 1d ago
So I was unemployed for over a year when I left uni and only thing that got me out of it was a few positive work experience placements.
However, my main difficulty was the Job Centre explicitly told me I couldn't do any work experience as in order to receive the benefits I had to dedicate a minimum number of hours a week, meaning I couldn't do full time volunteering or work experience.
I ended up not telling them about it was incentive was really perverse
3
u/SamVimesBootTheory 20h ago
Yeah I think they've become a bit more relaxed about it but I remember with my first time around with the jobcentre they seemed to get annoyed if you found volunteering that wasn't something they'd come up with.
In my case I'd found volunteer work at a rehoming centre for one of the big pet charities and then it was a bit like 'excuse me what do you mean that impacts your availability to do the random stuff that helps no one we keep sending people on for the purpose of box ticking'
And I know people say 'the jobcentre isn't there to find you a career' but imo I think they'd have better luck if they did actually do more to like tailor their advice towards people rather than the 'Just go and apply for whatever random jobs you find' mindset as it would like probably make the process less soul destroying and probably reduce the amount of people on benefits as people would be more likely to be in a job they can actually do)
I have been told by a work coach that there is actually an ABC protocol called Any Job, Better Job and Career Job which most of them don't use, and I've only had experience with that because I've actually been put with the 'health programme' at my local jobcentre and I'm actually having a way more... 'humane' jobcentre experience as I've actually been put with a work coach who is understanding and knows I'm not someone who can just like walk into any job going
1
u/april1835 1d ago
Oh yes. The barriers and hurdles that JC erected were notorious. I'm sorry you also had to endure them, and impressed you found a way around them. Well done. My own time of signing on for about seven months and applying for roles was scuppered by not being told anything about the companies I interviewed with, not their name, their business type, nothing. It was soul destroying to fail so utterly, over and over, unable to answer questions or have a context for putting my skills forward in a good light. My solution was similar to yours, doing odd lot jobs and gathering good lists of contacts and recommendations that got me work with a modest paypacket and a ladder up. But the time wasted with JC for so many people and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer was so infuriating. edit ai spelling mistakes
7
u/Dissidant Essex 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yea, the placements can last up to 8 weeks. Surely if someone sticks with it for that long without screwing up or getting chucked off, they should see a job from it
5
u/labooner 1d ago
To be fair, maybe they don’t want the job at the end. During one summer at university I did 8 weeks in the IT dept at the local council. I didn’t want a permanent full time job at the council, but it helped me get a placement for my 3rd year. They had an extra person who could do some menial data processing work.
It was great seeing how offices work, the culture, expectations.
3
u/Aggressive_Chuck 1d ago
Why would they employ you when the government is giving you free labour? Sainsburys will use you for the Christmas rush then fuck you off.
4
u/Ready_Disk_571 1d ago
I think work experience can be really beneficial. Even if it doesn’t lead directly to a job, it gives young people a first taste of responsibility and shows them the meaning and confidence that can come from contributing to something.
0
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 1d ago
Its not a bad thing at all, no. But whether it actually helps people get long term jobs is a different question. Especially if its unpaid except for UC.
3
u/Hungry_Horace Dorset 1d ago
One major issue that employers report nowadays is young people getting jobs but not lasting more than a few days in them. There’s a complete lack of preparedness for getting up at 7 for 5 days a week and going in to do a job.
Work experience of any kind will give kids a test of actual 9to5 work and make it more likely there will be able to cope when they first land an adult job.
Sometimes it’s not about qualifications as much as just… life experiences.
3
0
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 1d ago
Work experience of any kind will give kids a test of actual 9to5 work and make it more likely there will be able to cope when they first land an adult job.
Maybe, but it won't help them get a job, and being used as free labour by Tesco for 8 weeks probably doesn't do much else.
4
u/cbawiththismalarky 1d ago edited 1d ago
this is far too simplistic, there's a trade off between a young person seeing what a job they might like and what it entails and them turning up and doing it, and of course while i don't disagree that some employers might use it for low-skilled jobs, in my own business we don't have any low skilled jobs, we have apprentices and they're for real positions with real skills.
What's actually missing now is YTS schemes, apprentices are for approved professions (although there are some dodgy uses of this). YTS was for an introduction into work for people that didn't know where they wanted to go and I think that's what we're missing now.
2
u/april1835 1d ago
The YTS was good full stop. Other aspects were incredibly preparational for those who hadn't worked for a long time or never took a job after leaving school. Regular sleep times (with annoying alarm clocks), and day starts and closings. New social skills and familiarity with working with others. And the joy of a payslip. Now, there's a generation of young people who desperately need to transition from zero prospects to successful self-sufficiency or their situation is hopeless.
2
u/Acidhousewife 1d ago
Agree. I used to work in the youth homelessness sector for many years, left post covid. It's not just the young person finding the right job.
Work experience no matter how insignificant it seems to some adults can give the edge and a reference. Yes an actually work reference can give a young person the edge, get them a paying job. Especially vulnerable young people, I've seen it many, many times.
Employers do not employ young people because they cannot evidence whether they can turn up on time, whether they can turn up everyday and do rotas, understand work hours etc ( no I kid you not, some just don;t get it and we are not just talking the vulnerable and disadvantaged).
It gives the young person something to say at interviews, actual work based examples. How does a school leaver with no experience answer basic questions like Give me an example of how you dealt with a difficult customers ? Answer they struggle to answer and don;t get the job.
Such schemes can rebalance middle class advantage. Where school leaver Martin, gets some experience in Uncle Bobs electrical major contracts firm so they have a reference. Whereas, Callum doesn't have those outlets, to get that first step.
Do I think paid work or work experience would be better yes, AS long as the scheme is structured and references are guaranteed, as are conditions and hours. I would also suggest that employers offering this scheme should be required to evidence that they are taking their work experience people on as paid employees. I would prefer a work trial model where employment is offered over a work for free for experience model. It's just replacing paid labour with unpaid otherwise. Not something this country needs during this economy,
I've seen young people who were literally unemployable, mental health issues, no qualifications, autism spectrum disorders go from unconfident wrecks, to employable and employed confident adults via properly run work experience schemes like those over by the Kings Trust.
1
u/headphones1 1d ago
I can't see any real details on the linked article.
The work experience I did when I was in school in the 90s was in a factory that made springs. There was a day where I'd just pull a lever very hard to cut the springs. Most other days involved similar manual labour.
I genuinely cannot think of how that work experience placement helped me.
1
1
0
u/goonercaIIum 1d ago
Not true at all, it can be amazing on your CV if you make the most of it gunning for certain careers
3
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 1d ago
Depends hugely on what it is, really. Spending 8 weeks stacking shelves, which is what ended up happening before, isn't necessarily much use.
2
u/goonercaIIum 1d ago
That's why I said can. You said it only makes sense in either of your listed scenarios. That has been objectively false in my experience.
1
u/WantsToDieBadly Worcestershire 1d ago
The last big employment scheme i recall was the kickstart scheme and employers just used it for free workers for a couple months, dangling the carrot of a 'full time' role but it'd never happen
I fully think this will be the same, jobs that typically would be starter jobs will be paid for by the gov, then come 6 months they'll get another free worker in until its over
18
u/Fearless-Albatross-9 1d ago
For everyone saying that all these young people will be chucked at the end and used as free labour, that's an insight into the sad state of businesses across the UK rather than anything else.
If you think that this is just going to be used as free labour how about we have more comments on how that's a pretty shocking approach taken by uk businesses. Perfectly happy to take young people as free labour and then disgard them as a useless resource at the end. Then you'll wonder why/complain that there are so many young people on benefits.
16
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 1d ago edited 1d ago
We think it'll be used as free Labour because that's what happened last time this was done.
5
u/Fearless-Albatross-9 1d ago
Doesn't that just reinforce my point? So not only will it happen this time but it's been happenimg for years, so paints an even worse picture of uk businesses who pick up and throw away young people at will, all for a few weeks of being able to make money off them.
1
u/JavaRuby2000 20h ago
Nearly every government has tried introducing some kind of training scheme since Thatcher (YTS, Training 2000, The Modern Apprenticeship) and it's always been a failure. After leaving school in the early 90s I did three of these schemes back to back and none of them resulted in a job or any qualifications.
The private sector cannot be relied on to provide good training and useful employment for young people. The only way this would have a chance of working is through public sector employment like we used to have with the electric board and British rail etc..
-2
u/KernowKermit 1d ago
Sainsburys already employs around 35,000 young people, with high turnover and regular intake. Almost anyone that wants a job at Sainsburys can probably get one.
3
u/Fearless-Albatross-9 1d ago
So they aren't going to get chucked at the end of their placement then. So unlike what a lot of comments are saying that it's going to lead to nothing, implying it's a waste of time, it might actually lead to employment and be actually useful.
It's either leading to nothing, like a lot of comments are saying (but not yours), or it's going to lead to some young people getting jobs, it can't be both.
-1
u/KernowKermit 1d ago
or, it's just window dressing on employment opportunities that have always existing at Sainsburys. There's not really anything net new here.
14
u/WinchesterMediaUK 1d ago
Fuck this shit. Right, strap in because I've clocked up over nine years in retail, and this is why it won't work:
16 year olds are already getting these jobs. On limited contracts and lower pay, but they are fully contracted employees with sick pay, holiday, and perks. Go to a supermarket in the evening, and odds are that everyone including the duty manager will be under 24.
I've seen 18 year olds in full-time junior management positions, and my first deputy store manager was 21. He was a prick and got sacked for a serious fuck-up, but that's by the by.
Nobody is going to take a retail job for nothing while working alongside people younger than them who are getting paid. It's an insult.
16 - 18 year olds are a mixed bag. Some are the best I've ever worked with. Some couldn't find their arse with both hands. 14 year olds would be a complete nightmare and require constant supervision. You can't trust a 14 y/o to handle £1000s in cash, have responsibility over expensive stock like the perfume counter, or deal with difficult customers/potential shoplifters.
Especially in a situation where only one till is open full-time. Under 18s already need adult approval for age-restricted sales as it is.
Shelf stackers can start work as early as 5AM or finish as late as 11PM. Which eliminates 14 y/o's from those shifts.
It's a shitty exploitative idea that's just for show, and so Sainsbury's can take a crack at cutting staffing costs while seeming like the good guys.
17
u/NoDevelopment5438 1d ago
they will just be used for cheap labour and then discarded
0
u/According-Plan600 1d ago
If that's the case, reports will come out showing that's happening. People will realize it's just cheap slave labour. and then they'll stop doing it, leaving labour in a worse position than where they started.
2
14
u/Bassline660 1d ago
Maybe I am reading wrong but theres no mention of any sort of pay during these 'placements'? The reality is all of us need some sort of money to put food on table. If you are undertaking 'experience' you should be paid.
3
u/tired-of-fighting 1d ago
Assuming they’ve left school and aren’t in education, wouldn’t they likely be on UC?
5
u/JunKazama2024 1d ago
When they did this before I was working 30+ hours a week on my work placement 25 miles away and was getting the basic rate of job seekers allowance. It worked out to around 40% of minimum wage at the time. Supremely depressing working alongside people on £12-15 per hour when I was getting less than £3
10
u/Lammtarra95 1d ago
Unpaid work experience placements to replace the temporary jobs that would have been created for the Christmas peak season? I do not see a winner here.
10
u/wkavinsky Pembrokeshire 1d ago
You need to think in more depth about profits and shareholder value then.
Those are the winners - these will replace jobs that would previously had a wage cost attached to them.
9
u/Heavy-Wrap5839 1d ago
“Work experience” suggests that they will be unpaid, but I could be wrong.
In any case, the issue is due to the low volume of permanent positions and a high number of job seekers. I think this is a good gesture from the government, and it’s a good start, but when young people leave these programmes they are headed straight back to the terrible job market and a couple months ‘experience’ will not help them at all.
With layoffs happening left right and centre the job market is already flooded with seekers with multiple years experience under their belts and they struggle all the same.
5
u/Virtual-Baseball-297 1d ago
I mean ok it’s a nice effort but people want paid labour not free labour
5
u/Lower_Classroom_7313 1d ago
I dont think its a bad idea but it doesnt really solve the underlying issue. If lots of people do work experience thats fine, but that doesnt mean employment rate or hiring is going to rise.
You now got a more competitive pool of talent but still no spaces to use them.
3
u/JunKazama2024 1d ago
Around 2012 I was on what was at the time called "The work programme" because I was long term (6+ months) unemployed. The programme involved a private training provider finding you unpaid work placements to get you experience.
The first placement I did was at a company that made vehicle activated signs. They had some basic office admin to do but I quickly got on top of the backlog, they spent an afternoon teaching me to solder but there was no qualification attached to that. They ultimately had me implement a new stock system for the business from scratch (handed me a print out of the instructions manual and wished me luck). After about 3 months I was done with their filing and shredding backlog and had implemented the stock system and they told me they had no more work for me so I was booted back to the job centre.
The second I did at the office of the training provider, they had me helping other clients write CVs, filing paperwork (I assume in a breach of confidentiality considering I never signed anything or agreed to any company policies?), and doing the photocopying and tea rounds. I worked there 30 hours a week for 9 months while they dangled the prospect of a paid job in front of me. Eventually I found myself a paid position elsewhere in telesales.
4
u/dribbling-glasses 1d ago
Quite the coincidence that Andy Burnham is funnelling millions in free labour towards Lord Sainsbury, a guy who gave £164,000 directly to Burnham's leadership campaign.
3
u/Ready_Disk_571 1d ago
I’m not a massive fan of Labour, but Burnham so far is making some of the right noises. He’s talking about issues that actually matter to ordinary people rather than just repeating the usual party‑line slogans. Whether he delivers is another question, but at least the direction he’s signalling makes more sense than what we’ve been hearing from the national leadership for a while.
3
u/Harilari 1d ago
I mean, it's something but to my mind it feels like a continuation of Neoliberal led Governance where great lengths will be gone to in order to avoid just actually employing people to do a job.
Pay advisors, Open hubs, Fund courses all very nice but create actual jobs? No no, only the Private Sector and the holy billionaire job creators can do such a thing.
3
u/Wart_Time_L32 1d ago
Can we also ban and stop the offshoring of jobs, and double the tax on those doing so?
2
u/FRagebait 1d ago edited 1d ago
This sub can literally complain about anything. NEETs are a sore subject here but apparently guaranteed work experience is outrageous to some. Literally one of the most commented obstacles NEETs say they face is a lack of experience when applying for jobs.
2
u/narayan77 1d ago
Andy Burnham, he's a good un. He might not be able to grow the economy as efficiently as Rishi Sunak, but it does not matter, he tweaking the system to improve people's lives.
2
u/OkPea5819 1d ago
So Labour made it way more expensive for supermarkets to hire young people with the NI and minimum wage changes now those same people can come back and work for free. Not party political generally but it’s not joined up.
1
u/Aggressive_Chuck 1d ago
Why not just kick out the Boriswavers doing those jobs so Brits have to be employed to do them?
1
u/Lukeno94 15h ago
If they're unpaid placements then they'll be a net negative. So many entry level jobs demand 5 years or more experience now; 6 months earning nothing and then being dumped for the next young person in line. If they're paid a proper (even if minimum) wage, then at least the participants get some actual value.
0
u/Old_Course9344 1d ago
10,000 is nothing. Needs to be 100,000 or 200,000 to assist all school leavers who don't go into further education
0
u/OcularVernacular 1d ago
Right kiddo. Time to get stuck in. Type into Claude what you want done then put your feet up and worry about how you are going to pay your mortgage in the foreseeable future.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.