No, not the USA; Tesco. Well it is fashionable among the Islington intelligentsia to sneer at Tesco as it is the favoured supplier to the untermensch so looking down upon it is de rigeur if you move in those circles or have aspirations of so doing. As it has regularly turned over high profits by following a successful formula of providing what its customers want, where they want them and when, two birds are effectively killed with one withering jibe – the lower orders and capitalism.
Tescos are in the news again and the Nameless Libertarian commenting over at the Devil’s Kitchen picks up on it. Tescos are in hot water over their involvement with the workfare scheme.
Before I make any further comment, Tesco has pointed out that there was an IT error that led to a misleading job advertisement – so that one is the proverbial storm in a teacup and those calling for a boycott over it are making themselves look silly. Not worth the mention, frankly. Someone cocked up. Anyone who hasn’t cocked up at some point in their lives may now feel free to lambast Tesco for this one.
Okay, all done? Good, then I shall continue.
It is unusual for me to disagree with TNL, but on this one, I do. Firstly though, there is some common ground. The basic principle behind the scheme is a reasonable one as it seeks to give job seekers an opportunity. And even if they do not want to spend the rest of their lives in retail, at least it will help them get into a workday routine. Apparently, at the end of the trial period, the jobseeker is guaranteed an interview. When I mentioned this scheme before, the story involved a different retailer and the interviews were not happening. I cannot say if this is the case with Tesco, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were not.
TNL talks about the jobseeker being offered a choice.
Furthermore, these people have a choice – they can either do the work (which, from my understanding of a scheme whose terms seem to vary depending on which article I read, they have to have shown some sort of an interest in) or lose their JSA. Sure, the choice might not be particularly edifying, but it remains a choice.
Given that this is the kind of choice the Labour party were offering us when proposing an identity card, it isn’t really a choice in the sense that we understand choice. It is not truly a free choice – it never is when a gun is held to one’s head. It is, at best, Hobson’s choice, which is no choice at all.
That said, this is not automatically a bad thing. When faced with a serial malingerer who sees benefits as a lifestyle option and has failed to respond to all overtures by the Job Centre, maybe that Hobson’s choice is just what is needed to concentrate their mind. For the rest, though, that choice may affect their ability to seek work in their own area of competence, so they would prefer to spend their time more productively. They should always have that option.
I agree with TNL that the use of the term slavery is perhaps hyperbole. However, the reasons behind it are sound. Bella Gerens in the comments to TNL’s piece nails it:
I am wondering if the question here depends on the value of the work to Tesco. If Tesco attaches value to the work, it should pay the worker to do it. Thus workfare becomes unfair, because Tesco could be paying that jobseeker a wage, or paying some other jobseeker a wage, for doing the work.
And therein lies the crux. There are plenty who argue that the jobseeker should be doing work for their benefit. However, that benefit comes out of taxes we pay. We pay them on the understanding that it provides a safety net should we need it, not be expected to work for Tescos for less than £2 per hour. Oh, sure there are always the ignorant fuckwits who will complain about paying taxes to support you despite your having paid in yourself for a lifetime and are drawing out but a tiny fraction of that input. Consequently the “we are paying you, so you should do something for it” brigade don’t get a huge amount of sympathy from me, having been on the receiving end of JSA a little over a year ago. No, folks, you were not paying for me, you never have and you never will. The thousands of pounds I have paid in for myself paid for me.
If Tesco wants the work done, then they should pay the going rate for it. What should not be happening is that they get the work done for free and the jobseeker is paid a pittance for doing it. Both the jobseeker and the taxpayer are subsidising a multimillion pound organisation and it is pocketing the proceeds. This is exploitation of the weak by the strong. That it is reprehensible should not need to be explained. That it is happening at all is an indictment of the sheer incompetence and inability of the state to get anything right. Tesco may be laughing all the way to the bank, but who set in motion a process that provides them with free labour in the first place? It is not beyond the wit of man to have in place a scheme whereby the employer tops up the JSA to the level they would be paying their regular employees. The difference being an incentive to give the job seekers a try.
Clearly it is too much for the denizens of the department of work and pensions… So, on balance, I’m with the boycotters on this one.
My wife is a Tax Accountant – no exactly a left-wing occupation.
She went totally ballistic on learning of this.
She did use the word “salvery” actually ….
If people do a job, other than interns and premium apprentices (who thereby expect special treatment at the ned of their stints) then they should be paid the going rate for that job.
It is, at the very least indentured servitude, if not outright slavery.
NOT ON
“…who will complain about paying taxes to support you despite your having paid in yourself for a lifetime…”
Ah, and there we have the rub, don’t we? Because NI isn’t really ‘insurance’, but a giant Ponzi scheme. You thought you were paying into it so it’d tide you over, but in reality, what you were paying was being spent on people who’d never ever paid in a penny.
If the Tesco saga just serves to bring that little nugget home to people, it’ll have been worth it…
Well, yes, of course I realise that. However, my main point still stands; having paid in over the past thirty odd years, I expect to be able to get some of it back without whingers complaining that their taxes are paying for me. There but for the grace of God and all that, eh?
That’s the problem with JSA, LR, it is a pittance. It is a pathetic amount. It should be 50% of your last wage/salary for 6 months then should be zero. After all you were paying taxes. I remember some 10 years back when I was paying £3000 per month in income tax and had been for a while, being made redundant. We all live up to our salaries. So after a few months I was getting £62 a week. You simply can’t live on this amount. It is indeed a pittance. But you do get your stamp paid for. The JSA should be based either on your salary or on the amount of taxes you paid, not a flat rate pittance for all.
And I forgot another thing …
Tesco are getting, as a Private Company (they are a PLC) state aid for their employees (or indentured servants or slaves) – their NI etc are being paid by the state (our taxes) rather than their employer.
Which is also illegal.
If Tesco were getting a benefit from this, couldn’t they make the same argument that they’ve paid into the system?
Besides, I doubt if they are getting a huge benefit. It’s more likely the case that they’ve had their arm twisted to get involved in a government scheme.
That’s a warped way of looking at it, though logically sound. However, ultimately, businesses don’t pay taxes, we do. Also, they are getting work done for nothing. Why should the job seeker who is struggling on a pittance subsidise them? The real issue here is the strong preying on the weak.
I don’t know enough about the details. I read the discussion at Liberal Conspiracy, and many commenters were disputing the facts as represented. Whatever Tesco is doing, it is under a government scheme, which I think involves going to employers and getting them to offer work placements with a guaranteed job interview. I doubt that Tesco are greatly benefiting from it. Offering short-term work experience places usually involves a member of staff in over-seeing the person, so there is a cost to the company of the time of an experienced member of staff, and if the work experience placement is short-term, its difficult to get much out of the worker, beyond the most simple tasks.
As such, I think the depiction of Tesco as latter-day slave-drivers is somewhat over the top. I think the real issue in the story is the leftwing raising a hue and cry against evil big business and profit-making of any kind, and their desire to represent the tories as wanting to boil up the suffering poor for glue
The kind of jobs we are talking about here can be learned in a matter of an hour or so and with negligible direct supervision. Frankly, the new worker is pulling his weight by the end of the first shift. Why should he not be paid the going rate? I have first hand experience of this type of work unfortunately, so know of which I speak.
The issue isn’t whether Tesco was persuaded to enter into a government scheme or not – likely as not they were. It is that they are putting people to work that directly benefits their business and are not paying the going rate for it (how much benefit is neither here nor there, the principle remains intact). The job seeker is being exploited – whether by Tesco or the state is immaterial, it is still exploitation. Exploitation of the weak by the strong is always wrong.
Thank you, Longrider — agree 100% with you.
This is a ‘deeply flawed’ scheme in so many ways.
I do think there is a problem with graduates with no work experience being able to file for JSA, however, for those who have been in work and lost it, they have paid into the system and should jolly well get something out of it, even if it only pays their grocery bill for the week.
The same discussion is going on in France, by the way. Sarkozy would like all job seekers to do seven hours of work a week. Most French people (76%) are opposed (RMC — Radio Monte Carlo — online survey on Friday, Feb. 24 on Eric Brunet’s show) but there are still a number of Frenchmen saying, ‘It’s only fair’. Seriously, I do not think they have ever been made redundant. Not a happy prospect.
Right — so, a TAXPAYER is made redundant — no fault of his own — and then is expected to work for zip. Really?
You are right to question the ethics here. Again, thanks.
Trooper Thompson
Just because it is “under a guvmint scheme”
DOES NOT MEAN it is OK and hunky-dory.
Somewhat to the contrary, as I’ve pointed out.
TESCO are getting guvmint help, to “employ” cut-rate indentured servants or slaves.
Sainsbury, and Morrisons and Asda and Waitrose are NOT getting that preferential “help”.
The whole thing stinks
Just a note on style:
The company is called “Tesco”; adding the “s”, possessive or not, is incorrect.
(This was pointed out to me, and I’m still finding it very hard to break the habbit)
A bit like habit being spelled with only one “b”?
Interesting post on it via Tim Worstall….
Well while I can see the reason for all the frustration from those forced to do this work who don’t need the ‘experience’ and can make better use of their time looking for a real job, the linked cityunslicker blog post fairly demolishes the idea that Tesco et al. are making any money out of it and so should be paying the ‘going rate’.
While I acknowledge the points made in that piece (although it does tend to overstate the training and induction process – it can be achieved much more quickly and the worker can be earning his pay by the end of the first shift) it doesn’t alter the basic principle. Work should be remunerated at the going rate. There is no ethical argument to counteract that principle. To expect someone to work full time for £65 is exploitation. Especially if, like I have, they have spent a lifetime contributing to the system.
As an aside, the whole thing is deeply flawed anyway. If you have the gumption to make your own arrangements, such as getting some training in order to improve your work prospects, you will be penalised because you are not available for work. I discovered this little rule when I mistakenly mentioned to the JC that I had been offered training that would lead directly to me getting work. Sorry, I was told. Can’t do that.