Summations Only

In the UK at the moment there is a debate rumbling on about the nature of unpaid work for the unemployed. LinkOn one hand this (as the link suggests) is seen as free labour for multi-million dollar companies and obvious exploitation of the unemployed.On the other hand many argue that this provides valuable work experience for those in danger of becoming effectively unemployable if they just remain long term on benefits. LinkWho is right and who is wrong?

Would this not be an issue if all the work was with local councils, charities, etc.?

I think some of the work placements are more like that. And they certainly seem to be less controversial than the ones involving Tescos, Primark, Hilton et al.In answer to your question - I think it would be less of an issue. Because the accusation of exploitation in the form of free labour for profit is what seems to really get people's backs up.Giving the unemployed work experience I don't think many object to in principle.

How many unemployed people are without work experience?

I don't know. We have a problem with youth unemployment in this country (and across Europe) and I guess that some of those may never have been employed at all. Also there are those who have been unemployed for extended periods (the "long term unemployed") who may have worked at one point but who have lost the "habit" of work and who might arguably benefit from work experience for that reason.But - to explicitly get back to the actual question you ask - I'm not sure if there even are stats for those who are unemployed but who have never worked.

When I was at school we had arranged work experience to give us experience in the work place. This was seen a valuable experience mixing with grown ups and seeing how work got done in the real world.This notion of making people work for their benefit seems okay to me, but when you have big companies potentially using this labour source as opposed to paying a living wage I can appreciate the problems many will have.If people on benefit are going to get 'encouraged' to do work to access their benefits they should be 'encouraged' to work in socially, ethically and environmentally sound endeavours: rather than being cheap shelf stackers for Tescos.All that that will teach them is self stacking is shit.

On this side of the pond, as I imagine it is on your side, the issue is complex. There is a continuing influx of young people with little or no job experience, but there is also a large body of experienced workers who are, quite frankly, considered old.What we are seeing here is a rush of early retirement, people applying for Social Security at the first possible minimum age. We have a very large body of unemployed folk that are unemployed because they are thought to be overqualified.

Looks like they're both right, and neither is wrong. We'd need some data to do any figurin' and I'm afraid there's not gonna be enough on this kinda stuff :-\

Where I have a problem is large companies using unpaid labour to carry out functions essential to their operations as a way of cost-cutting. All this does is increase the profits for their shareholders on the back of unpaid workers. If a large company needs the work done, they should employ people to do it. Given the choice of a free worker or one they have to pay, which one do you think they will choose?I have no problem with work experience being carried out in charities and voluntary organisations or with councils etc. However, we also have a major problem with people who have been chucked of Incapacity Benefit, landing them on the heap of unemployed, yet they are unfit for work. For example, what work can you send an agoraphobic to do when they can't even get out their front door? Therehave been cases of people instructed to walk a certain distance at their medical examinations who have had to be taken to hospital because they collapsed while trying, yet have subsequently declared "fit" for work.There's even been a case where the building used for medical examinations has no disabled access, resulting in people failing to turn up because they can't get in and so declared fit, or they have got out of wheelchairs and used crutches to negotiate the entrance while their helper bumps the wheelchair up the steps. Unbeknownst, they have been observed doing this as part of their medical and declared able to walk and fit for work.Did you know that the medics who carry out these medicals are paid a bonus for every person they get off disability and on toJobseekers' Allowance? A friend was forced off disability because his stammer wasn't bad enough, according to the medic who examined him. The problem is that my friend's disability had absolutely nothing to do with a stammer - he'd never stammered in his life! It took him a year to sort that out, meanwhile he couldn't claim Jobseekers because the Job Centre and his GP considered him unfit for work. By the time he won his appeal he had lost his home and of course he was never reimbursed for all of the money he should have received.If the big multinationals were forced to employ people to do work, rather than offered slave labour, we might see a drop in the unemployment figures. Instead, they just move on from one slave to the next, with very few obtaining a job at the end of their placement, since it benefits the employer to get another work experience person in their place.Sorry if this is partially off-topic, but there is a link between current policy on disability and the number of unemployed.

A basic question.If someone can fill the requirements of an unpaid job, aren't they also capable of filling the same position in a paid job.

So - Does unpaid work have any economic value.....?

A good question.Further - If that position is being filled by someone capable of filling that position but for free are they doing the equally capable person who requires payment out of a job?

How good are the government benefits? Are the unpaid workers able to afford housing, food, and clothing of livable standard?Is the unpaid work compulsory?Gaining experience is great, but everyone still needs to be able to afford a place to live, food, and clothing at an absolute minimum. And if the work is compulsory...it stinks of an attempt to create a "slave" class.But if the work is voluntary as a means to gain experience, and the social safety net is sufficient to guarantee the unpaid workers livable conditions, then my only concern would be whether unpaid positions would be costing existing paid jobs.The difference I suppose could be rapped up as whether the policy is part of a program to legitimately provide the means to allow the unemployed to improve their lives (with real, measured success), or whether the policy exists solely to prey upon their misfortune and desperation.

Sure: Deduct the labor cost from the manufacturing side and soak it up in an increased margin, and you could easily calculate how much economic value unpaid work adds to your widget.Utilize the reduced cost to reduce the selling price and your widget becomes a better "value" in the economy, but that's not "economic value".Redirect the savings from labor into R&D and invent a better widget thereby adding "value" to the economy (and benefit society as a whole), but that's not what "econimc value" means either.

That's funny, I was just thinking: hey, you know what needs re-inventing? Slavery.