Summations Only

No it's not. We compensate employees in many different ways. Some employees are compensated with college credit and work experience. Some compensation is in healthcare benefits. Sometimes compensation is in the form of living quarters.The notion that compensation must be a $ amount is just thata notion. I don't propose that people actually be uncompensated. And the people involved in the program do appear to be getting compensated. I simply use the phrase 'unpaid work' because it's the one used in the title of the thread. No sensible person actually thinks people should have to work with no compensation whatsoever. Again; people can be compensated without being given money. And I'll tell you again: I'm not proposing that people work for free. In other words, you need to ask your stupid ass question of someone else! I haven't:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 18:

​

crashfrog writes:

​

"Unpaid work." What a load of horseshit.

​

They're not completely unpaid.

---

quote:

---

Jon in Message 27:

​

We already have two systems where people work for free

​

And as far as I can tell, what's being done in England isn't one of them.

---

quote:

---

Jon in Message 32:

​

crashfrog writes:

​

If we have minimum wage then we have minimum wage, and it's against the law to hire someone for free, because $0.00 an hour is well below the minimum wage.

​

Which I don't advocate.

---

quote:

---

Jon in Message 36:

​

I was pretty clear in Message 16 about exactly what I thought. Nowhere did I argue for stealing labor, yet that has been crash's focus in all his replies to me so far.

---

Do you finally see why your question is irrelevant to the stance I have taken? Do you see now that I have never once proposed that people not be compensated for their labor?Will you finally stop asking me how I think not compensating people for their labor solves problems when I've never put such nonsense forward as a solution? Such work doesn't exist you mentally impotent buffoon!That's why the people are unemployed. Not compensating people for their labor solves nothing. This proposal should go over well in the real world. Or wait... you live in the Star-Trek Universe; perhaps things are different there.Jon

But they are paid! They're probably not paid enough for all the work they do, but who the hell is these days?And besides, 'compelling them to work... under threat of homelessness and starvation'? Isn't that why 90% of the population goes to work anyway?As is, the program seems highly corrupt. But the notion that it is unethical even in principle just doesn't seem supportable. Yes. But the work done has to justify that extra wage. Otherwise you might as well just pay people minimum wage for their unemployment benefits (which they should be getting anyway) and not waste the extra money having them do unproductive work.I think in principle this program is a fine idea, so long as the things I said in Message 16 are followed.Jon

Sometimes they are paid, and sometimes they voluntarily allow the company to hold back some of their pay and buy them something with it.But, look, you're still not making any sense. State universities offer credit at about $120 an hour, these days. A company isn't going to compensate $3.00 of labor with $120 worth of credit. That's nonsensical. A company isn't going to compensate $3.00 of labor with hundreds of dollars in health care benefits. That's nonsensical. A company isn't going to compensate $3.00 of labor by paying $500 in rent. That's nonsensical.At that low level money is the most appropriate form of compensation because it's the finest-grained - it goes down to the penny. You can't pay someone in a fraction of a "living quarters." You assert that they're being compensated, but so far the only "compensation" you've identified is "the opportunity to do work for free", and that's not compensation of any sort. That's theft of labor. It's up to you to identify what this "alternate compensation" is, and whether it's actually a good exchange for the labor received. The fact that the UK is forcing people into these arrangements indicates, in fact, that it is not a good exchange - otherwise they'd do so voluntarily, and we would call it "volunteering." The title of the thread is "Unpaid work for the Unemployed." Please try again. But such work does exist, millions of people in the US are employed in jobs where their labor justifies being paid a minimum wage, so it's clear that the buffoonery is your own, in the assertion that there are no jobs where the labor produced justifies the minimum wage. If that were the case no one would be in a job at all. Since the unemployment rate is not 100% it's obvious that you're wrong - stupidly so. Why do you insist on saying things that are so stupid? Again, the problem here isn't that we don't read your posts, it's that we do read them, and in doing so, discover that you're an idiot. They're employed because no one is paying them for their labor. Again, for the sixth time, how is that problem solved by having them provide their labor without pay? Well, yes. Many of your workers will object to the pay cut. Another alternative, if the problem is economy-wide, is to effectively reduce wages via inflation. In the real world, this sleight-of-hand is so effective that every economist agrees that it's the appropriate response to an unemployment shock.

Not by those for whom they work. And not at minimum wage or higher. Yes...except they are not compelled to perform specific work, and they are protected by employment laws that this policy at least partially seeks to circumvent.I see where you're coming from...but it simply begs the question: why not just hire them to do the same work? If they are hired, they no longer need unemployment benefits as they're no longer unemployed. They would be paid by the actual entity benefiting from their labor. The government could easily provide a tax break or subsidy for hiring unemployed individuals if necessary.There's simply no rational reason for this sort of program to exist other than to exploit the unemployed and desperate. There are plenty of ways to incentivise hiring, even for menial jobs; profit need not entirely come from sales, tax breaks and subsidies can improve the bottom line just as easily. It's a form of forced labor that exclusively targets the poor and desperate, threatens them with immanent starvation and homelessness, unless they perform uncompensated labor. They are not, for some reason, simply hired as regular employees to perform the same labor, and the only possible consequence of such a thing is exploitation. This moral dilemma seems fairly simple, to me. I;m confused as to why you believe the exploitation of the poor is somehow justifiable.Allow me to propose a different solution: massive public works. Hire the unemployed to perform menial labor for the state, things like city beautification or road construction or simple data entry. Pay them at least minimum wage. Set up publicly subsidized housing for low-income individuals and families that is affordable at minimum wage.One could even modify the policy slightly and reach an ethical solution: hire the unemployed as interns in their chosen field, paying them at least minimum wage with the same benefits as above, paid for via tax stimulus or subsidy. The corporations essentially still get free labor, paid for by the state, the "unemployed" become "employed" and receive all of the protections of employment law including minimum wage, and gain relevant experience in their chosen field of employment.The problem is that the policy under discussion is explicitly designed to circumvent employment law, to allow "compensation" below minimum wage while still compelling labor. That is quite plainly exploitation of the poor, and is so obviously unethical it defies comprehension that you should see it otherwise. The state sufficiently benefits by having lower unemployment that this is not a concern. Compensate the employers through tax breaks and subsidies.

Whatever Crash. You're clearly hung up on thinking that I am proposing people go to work without compensation and no amount of me telling you that I don't think they should seems as though it will change your mind.Little does, though; so I'm not surprised.Jon

I don't think it is. The nature of the benefit might change and there might be different stipulations attached to receiving it after a certain amount of time - But I'm pretty sure it doesn't just stop.

Indeed. They should be getting something out of the employment itself too aside from simply maintaining eligibility for the unemployment pay. And the unemployment pay should be at least at minimum wage. Like I've said, if the company has to pay them minimum wage, yet the work generates less income than the wage, there will be no hiring. That's the way the situation is now: companies don't have work available at the minimum wage and so no more people are getting hired at the minimum wage; and companies can't hire people at less than the minimum wage, and so no body is getting hired at that wage eitherso no one is getting hired.A better system would be to allow companies to hire people at less than minimum wage and then use unemployment benefits to make up the differencein effect, a minimum income system instead of a minimum wage system. But complete system revolution is, I think, getting a little away from the topic of the thread, which is how to best deal with the system we've got and the program that's been put in place. Sure around here, it is already possible for companies to receive such incentives for hiring people receiving welfare payments. I don't think that's the case. I think a program like this could be very beneficial to everyone involved, so long as some measures are taken to prevent exploitation. Can I ask you this: if the steps in Message 16 where followed, would you be as troubled with the program's existence? If so, what do you particularly find unacceptable about my propositions for improvement? Don't go down Crashfrog lane now and start accusing me of holding positions I don't hold. I have never said that exploitation of the poor is justified, and I certainly don't hold such a position. Again, my Message 16 should make it clear that I do not at all think the current program is acceptable but that I do see it as possible with proper precautions. And this was part of my Message 16, making the service mostly community-based instead of corporation-based. Exactly as I've said. As is, the program stinks. But having unemployed people work for compensation is not entirely unethical in principle (obviously), just in the way it's been put into practice in the program mentioned in the OP. Hopefully in a way that doesn't amount to the government paying company profits. But, yes, this plan seems okay. Though I would argue that it is not necessary to have the company pay the employee minimum wage and then get paid back by the governmentbetter, in my opinion, to simply have the company pay the employee an amount justified by their labor and value to the company, and then have the government make up the difference directly to the employee. Hopefully I've made it clear that I don't find the current program ethical.Jon

Because you don't tell me how they'll be compensated. You've only told me how they won't be compensated; with money or benefits. "The opportunity to work for free" is not compensation, and you hardly need an unpaid job to get that - if you want to stock shelves and not get paid for it, you don't even have to leave your home.If you propose "compensation", and then eliminate as compensation all forms of compensation, then you've proposed that they work without compensation. It's certainly true that nonsense argumentation supported by zero evidence doesn't change my mind. Please don't confuse your own impotence with intractability on my part.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I basically agree with your central point regarding the need for employment if there is need for a job to be done.But I do think Jon as been given a bit of a hard time here..... He might not be expressing himself very well but I think his heart is in the right place. He certainly doesn't seem to be advocating the existing situation in the UK. With that in mind...Do you think there is ever a situation where unpaid work experience is justified? If so what situations justify unpaid work experience? Who might benefit from such unpaid work experience? Anyone?

No, not ever. Not in a single instance. Volunteer experience has value, and I invite people to volunteer. But unpaid internships and the like are always a waste of time. By definition they can't be giving you relevant experience: if you're getting experience doing work relevant to the paid position you're training for, then you're doing that job and it can't be an internship (because internships can't displace paid workers.) If it's an unpaid internship, then, you can't be doing anything that someone in the same paid position would be doing, and so you can't possibly be getting relevant experience.The third alternative, of course, is that you're helping the company steal labor by having you work a paid job without pay. But that's against the law, so you wouldn't be able to put it on your resume - how would you get a reference for that work? No company would admit to using you to break the law.

100% wrong. Stupidly so.It is justified whenever two parties agree that such an arrangement is suitable between them.There are many jobs I would gladly do in exchange for unpaid work experience.

And the laboring party should not rationally ever agree that it is. That's not to say that many workers won't irrationally agree to work for free. But a contract entered into irrationally is, by definition, not justified.

So you are the grand definer of what is rational and what is not?Gimme a break!

Rationality is the grand definer of what is rational or not. Since I have a functioning brain, I'm capable of determining what is consistent with rationality.

Of course. Many internships are unpaid work. Some internships end up being job interviews. Volunteer work is unpaid, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that.But these kinds of things are subject to abuse whenever commercial interests are present, and the abuses are difficult to police. The best protection against abuse is the fact that unpaid work is strictly voluntary. Add a compulsory component to a commercial motive and the potential for abuse seems pretty clear.