Actually I think she's being treated like a prick by not being paid properly for the work she's done.
But thanks for your outburst.
IDS sort of reminds me of Stephen from Django Unchained. Treated like shit by his masters, yet somehow still in awe of the Bullingdon club. Perhaps he's been promised a nice house in the Cotswolds.
(, Sun 17 Feb 2013, 13:28, Share, Reply)
^this
Poundland obviously need the work done, yet they're not paying people to do it.
This scheme has turned the entire unemployed labour force into a vast pool of indentured servants. If you refuse to do your allotted job then your subsistence is taken from you - in contravention of Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Sun 17 Feb 2013, 13:38,
Share,
Reply)
Article 4.
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
They were asked to work. They were receiving payment in the form of benefits. They could get out of this arrangement any time by getting a job.
This is manifestly not slavery, and comparing it to slavery is frankly pretty offensive when you consider that it is still a real issue elsewhere in the world.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sun 17 Feb 2013, 14:52,
Share,
Reply)
To receive monetary benefits as payment for 'voluntary' work is against the law.
If she was being paid the benefits money for her work then she is in employment, and entitled to receive all the legal protection of an employee.
(, Sun 17 Feb 2013, 19:31, Share, Reply)
I could argue the point about who makes the law
and the fact that the courts didn't rule it illegal for that aspect, but hey, you know better about that don't you? However the fact you chose to make that point as a counter-argument to my saying it has nothing to do with slavery is... well... baffling frankly.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sun 17 Feb 2013, 20:32,
Share,
Reply)
well, if that case has changed volunteering law then that's important.
The UDHR covers indentured servants. The person was neither a volunteer nor an employee. A volunteer gives their time voluntarily. They can work as little and as much as they want. In the case of community work as part of a court sentence, that free labour is not volunteer work. This person was forced to give free labour of a required amount because they were claiming benefits - the benefits were not given as a wage. And as they were placed into a profit-making company, this is slavery by another name.
If this case has changed the law, and volunteers can both be forced to work a required amount and can be given monetary benefits in payment for their work, then this will radically impact the voluntary sector and would create a loophole in the right to a minimum wage and other employment rights.
(, Sun 17 Feb 2013, 20:56, Share, Reply)