Tesco blames ‘misunderstanding’ amid anger over workfare placement scheme
Tesco has urged the government to change its policy over unpaid workers, after finding itself at the centre of a row over complaints of low wages and allegations of “slave labour”.
A Westminster branch of Tesco was besieged by protestors at the weekend, with police called to deal with a dozen right-to-work campaigners who had forced the shop to close to customers.
A string of companies, including rival Sainsbury’s, have already pulled out of the government’s under-fire ‘workfare’ scheme, which protestors claim lets companies take on staff at little or no cost, with no guarantee of a job at the end of the placement.
Tesco bore the brunt of anger after a job ad for one of its positions was advertised as a permanent unpaid position – which it claims was the result of a mistake by job centre staff.
“Jobcentre Plus wrongly advertised a short work experience placement at Tesco as a permanent, unpaid job,” said a Tesco spokesperson.
“This has resulted in widespread misunderstanding of our position. Tesco has been working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus for many months to offer work experience opportunities lasting up to four weeks for young unemployed people who are struggling to find jobs.
“No-one is under any obligation to take part in the scheme and Jobcentre Plus has assured us that all of those who have come to Tesco have done so as volunteers. Tesco would not take part in any mandatory scheme. This is all about helping young people who want to find a job.”
Tesco said it was now calling on ministers to remove threats to dock the benefits of staff working on the placement scheme, claiming it had resulted in misunderstanding from the public.
“Work experience at Tesco should, wherever possible, be a pathway to a paid job with Tesco. That has already been the case for 300 work experience participants with us so far and we hope it will be for many more people,” the spokesperson added.
“We understand the concern that those who stay in the scheme longer than a week risk losing their benefits if they drop out before the end of their placement. We have suggested to the Department of Work & Pensions that, to avoid any misunderstanding about the voluntary nature of the scheme, this threat of losing benefit should be removed.”
Readers' comments (5)
Joe Hill | 20 Feb 2012 12:56
"Has urged the government" - I love the buck-passing here.
While the government are at fault, Tesco is under no obligation to take workfare 'volunteers', as Sainsbury have demonstrated.
Stop passing the buck and take action.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris White | 20 Feb 2012 13:14
over the last few days consumers have quite clearly expressed a view and opinion. mainy retails have listened to their concerns and changed their policy towards work experience. Tesco have dragged their feet and past the buck. Employment Minister Chris Grayling has claimed that 'people are 'job snobs'. Not at all, many of us have at one time worked in retail, Nobody over the weekend stopped eating or buying food. Instead the posted messages on Tesco's facebook page saing that the had shopped at a different Supermarket, or had tried out their local independant grocer. How good is that for supporting small business. Tesco have managed to ignore its huge client base and support local business at the same time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Feb 2012 13:38
It okay to pass the buck the fact is this why should the taxpayer purse be used to fund for labour tesco gets free the idea was to provide people with jobs and as soeone who has been throught all this alreay and still getting a rough ride by JCP (JOb centre PLus) Tesco should save grace nd pull out becase the workfare dont work at all it going to add mre taxes for lovely folk to pay (not me i know but im not a scrounger i am trying to get work where there is no work in my area i have bills to pay like everyone else so i cant work for free or for 60 quid a fortnight when my son does a appreticeship for 150 quid a week- alice in wonderland this country
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Niall Leighton | 20 Feb 2012 17:52
I am of the view that the public understands full well what is going on.
Tesco knew from the first minute that threat of destitution is involved for anyone who does not complete the placement.
That the offending ad mentioned above might have been an error might have been credible for the first day. My experience of your average DWP employee is that they do not have sufficient neurons to create a synapse. A similar ad, for the same company, went up on the JobcentrePlus board this morning. An almost identical one went up for Superdrug on Friday. I'm reliably informed there are many others. These are for permanent posts for benefits plus travel expenses.
One may be an accident. Two may be a coincidence. Three is deliberate.
The allegation is further undermined by plans that people with disabilities or mental health problems will be forced on to these schemes without limit of time.
Coercion is an important part of the scheme. Logically, who would work for free when they can get the same money to do more interesting things - and even Jeremy ******* Kyle is more interesting than stacking shelves in Tesco. In any case, if the scheme is not mandatory, the worker comes under the minimum wage legislation, and your members couldn't have that, could they?
The DWP and their friends in big business are deliberately undermining the job market. There are 10 people on JSA for every available job (including part time ones). Even assuming half of all jobs are not advertised that still leaves many people who are avalable for work not able to find a job.
The motive is simple. Profit. Why pay someone to do a job if someone else can be forced to do it for free?
I conclude, if these companies want staff, they should pay them at least the market rate, and stop trying to get free labour from the taxpayer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
richard lewis | 20 Feb 2012 18:28
free labour = more profit. why not?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment