WPP1 / WPP2

clarelad

got offered a 6 month placement today with a good company,its also related to my degree so hopefully it turns out to be what i expected

clarelad

7861213 wrote: »

AS someone who has been on the work placment program, I would advise anyone to consider carefully what you want from the placement. My experience was demeaning in terms of a lack of respect for me as a human being and with the placement having no relevance to the advertised specification for the role.
Thus I resigned as I felt I was treated as a second class citizen due to my inability to find work. It felt good to be back in society taking the bus to work arriving and leaving having done your hours. However this initial benefit was overtaken by the lack of facilities, training and even common curteousy expected from a work environment.
I am not a wet behind the ears student, I have numerous years in the workplace.
Please consider the interview stages for this role as your interview of the company as the role may not match your expectations.
Im am hoping this helps someone out there not to have the same experience as I encountered. My area is IT and I would not ever do a work placement scheme role again.

7861213

Hmmm,no harm in trying it out i guess,thanks for the feedback...

miec

AS someone who has been on the work placment program, I would advise anyone to consider carefully what you want from the placement. My experience was demeaning in terms of a lack of respect for me as a human being and with the placement having no relevance to the advertised specification for the role.
Thus I resigned as I felt I was treated as a second class citizen due to my inability to find work. It felt good to be back in society taking the bus to work arriving and leaving having done your hours. However this initial benefit was overtaken by the lack of facilities, training and even common curteousy expected from a work environment.
I am not a wet behind the ears student, I have numerous years in the workplace.
Please consider the interview stages for this role as your interview of the company as the role may not match your expectations.
Im am hoping this helps someone out there not to have the same experience as I encountered. My area is IT and I would not ever do a work placement scheme role again.

Hi Op

I am sorry to hear you were treated that way but I am not surprised. I am totally against this scheme, it is corrupt on so many levels. Every day I check out fas.ie and pretty much 95% of the jobs are WPP, now if there was no such scheme at least a third if not more of those jobs would have been real jobs (taxes coming into the economy, getting people off the dole properly, etc). This country cannot afford this scheme on top of everything esle and I would hazard a guess that most of the jobs do not offer experience or treat people fairly. FAS do not give a damn about regulating it properly and no one in the media will touch this story despite many people in this thread contacting them, it all seems a bit ****ed up.

28064212

miec wrote: »

I am sorry to hear you were treated that way but I am not surprised. I am totally against this scheme, it is corrupt on so many levels.

Yes, totally corrupt. 7861213 wasn't getting the experience they thought was necessary to make it worthwhile, but was forced to work like a slave for the full 9 months placement, completely against their... Oh wait, no, they could (and did) walk at any time, without losing anything.

While I don't know what the consequences of a participant walking away are for a company, I would imagine their application for a WPP participant will be (at least) reviewed.

miec wrote: »

This country cannot afford this scheme on top of everything esle

This country can't afford the economy to totally stagnate and another raft of SME's to go under while we wait for the cost of living, wages and employment all to stabilise

miec wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that most of the jobs do not offer experience or treat people fairly.

'Hazard a guess'? No ****. Of the posters who have actually participated in the program, most of them have said positive things about their experience.

7861213, sorry to hear about your crappy time on the WPP. If you haven't already, report the company to Fás. It might help prevent someone else suffering the same as you did

billybigunz

28064212 wrote: »

Yes, totally corrupt. 7861213 wasn't getting the experience they thought was necessary to make it worthwhile, but was forced to work like a slave for the full 9 months placement, completely against their... Oh wait, no, they could (and did) walk at any time, without losing anything.

While I don't know what the consequences of a participant walking away are for a company, I would imagine their application for a WPP participant will be (at least) reviewed.
This country can't afford the economy to totally stagnate and another raft of SME's to go under while we wait for the cost of living, wages and employment all to stabilise
'Hazard a guess'? No ****. Of the posters who have actually participated in the program, most of them have said positive things about their experience.

7861213, sorry to hear about your crappy time on the WPP. If you haven't already, report the company to Fás. It might help prevent someone else suffering the same as you did

This scheme causes unemployment. Tell me one possible way that it creates jobs.

28064212

billybigunz wrote: »

Tell me one possible way that it creates jobs.

It doesn't. No-one has claimed it does

billybigunz wrote: »

This scheme causes unemployment.

That's not a logical result. Just because something doesn't do something else, doesn't mean it does the opposite. What it does do, and what it has always claimed to do, is to provide an opportunity for job-seekers to upskill and gain experience where they wouldn't have a chance to otherwise

billybigunz

28064212 wrote: »

It doesn't. No-one has claimed it does
That's not a logical result. Just because something doesn't do something else, doesn't mean it does the opposite. What it does do, and what it has always claimed to do, is to provide an opportunity for job-seekers to upskill and gain experience where they wouldn't have a chance to otherwise

Profitable company advertises for paid job, finds out about WPP maybe because he sees his competitor is using it. Paid job becomes dole slave job.

Proved.
What waste of money. This scheme has no redeeming characteristics.

28064212

billybigunz wrote: »

Profitable company advertises for paid job, finds out about WPP maybe because he sees his competitor is using it. Paid job becomes dole slave job.

Proved.
What waste of money. This scheme has no redeeming characteristics.

Wow. I bow to your obviously completely well-thought-out and considerate analysis of the scheme. Well done.

Incidentally...

• Person recently graduated can't find work due to the mass of qualified and experienced people out there and the small number of positions available, person has no way to gain the experience necessary to actually compete, person has to emigrate or try and live on the dole.
• Company can't afford to pay someone (or can and worker turns out to be worse than useless), company goes under because they have become extremely unprofitable, entire company workforce out of a job.

Clearly, that proves your hypothesis completely wrong. Oh and where is the waste of money argument coming from? I can understand arguing that it's not a good idea, but, aside from the minimal cost of administration, how is it a waste of money?

billybigunz

You clearly have no understanding of the issue.

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

Wow. I bow to your obviously completely well-thought-out and considerate analysis of the scheme. Well done.

Incidentally...

• Person recently graduated can't find work due to the mass of qualified and experienced people out there and the small number of positions available, person has no way to gain the experience necessary to actually compete, person has to emigrate or try and live on the dole.
• Company can't afford to pay someone (or can and worker turns out to be worse than useless), company goes under because they have become extremely unprofitable, entire company workforce out of a job.

Clearly, that proves your hypothesis completely wrong. Oh and where is the waste of money argument coming from? I can understand arguing that it's not a good idea, but, aside from the minimal cost of administration, how is it a waste of money?

Unprofitable because it would not reduce wages, energy costs were too high, insurance costs were too high and rental costs were too high.

Those are the main reasons businesses cite when they fail or relocate.
The WPP scheme does not one thing to help. If a company cant afford to take people on it needs to go under so new people can take it over and run it more efficiently.

We are hell bent on propping up failed businesses and it`s eventually going to cost us the nations financial sovereignty. Its crap like this that will cause us to default.

5 days ago 42.4% of full time jobs on fas.ie were WPP(having increased by 0.5% in the previous 7 days before that). Today 43.9% are WPP. In just 5 days it increased by 1.5% ! Annualise that! The WPP scheme is clearly having a crowding out effect on paid employment.

eth0_

28064212 wrote: »

Incidentally...

• Person recently graduated can't find work due to the mass of qualified and experienced people out there and the small number of positions available, person has no way to gain the experience necessary to actually compete, person has to emigrate or try and live on the dole.....

Well, that is your idealistic utopian view of the WPP scheme. The reality is VERY different. A large % of these placements are of no use because they're essentially slave labour.

A good (and by no means unique) example of this was a recent WPP posting on the FAS website...six months WPP going round cleaning toilets and emptying sanitary towel bins. And you needed to have prior experience to even apply!

If that's not taking the p*ss, I don't know what is.

28064212

Deleted User wrote: »

Unprofitable because it would not reduce wages, energy costs were too high, insurance costs were too high and rental costs were too high.

Those are the main reasons businesses cite when they fail or relocate.
The WPP scheme does not one thing to help. If a company cant afford to take people on it needs to go under so new people can take it over and run it more efficiently.

Oh, I agree that it is extremely unlikely that the lack of a WPP option would cause a business to fail. My example was a facetious response to billybigunz "proving" that the WPP was a bad idea.

I don't agree that the WPP doesn't do anything to help companies. It encourages companies to take a chance on a graduate, instead of just battening down the hatches and not hiring anybody for the duration of the recession. It means that there is a chance to grow, instead of stagnating because the resources aren't there to take on some extra staff. And it means that at the end of the 9 months, they have someone who is ready to start immediately without any breaking-in period

Deleted User wrote: »

5 days ago 42.4% of full time jobs on fas.ie were WPP(having increased by 0.5% in the previous 7 days before that). Today 43.9% are WPP. In just 5 days it increased by 1.5% ! Annualise that! The WPP scheme is clearly having a crowding out effect on paid employment.

Absolutely meaningless stats. I can just as easily point out the increase and say that many positions which are trying to take advantage aren't being filled, so it's only the actually valid positions that are being taken up. Increase in adverts does not mean an increase in take-up.

eth0_ wrote: »

Well, that is your idealistic utopian view of the WPP scheme. The reality is VERY different. A large % of these placements are of no use because they're essentially slave labour.

Actually, it's based on both my and a friend's personal experience on the scheme. What are you basing your "large % of these placements" on?

eth0_ wrote: »

A good (and by no means unique) example of this was a recent WPP posting on the FAS website...six months WPP going round cleaning toilets and emptying sanitary towel bins. And you needed to have prior experience to even apply!

I assume you're referring to the washroom technician job that was posted on this thread? That was a position in a large multi-national corporation (ISS) which specialises in "Integrated Facility Services", and there was no experience mentioned in the specification. It involved servicing and installing various washroom products. The WPP could be a good chance to get a foot in the door. And if it's not, you can walk out at any time.

Incidentally, ISS are also still hiring for permanent positions, including one which actually is for a cleaner, on top of their WPP position, which has been on the Fás website since January 14

ROTTING CHRIST

28064212 wrote: »

Wow. I bow to your obviously completely well-thought-out and considerate analysis of the scheme. Well done.

Incidentally...

• Person recently graduated can't find work due to the mass of qualified and experienced people out there and the small number of positions available, person has no way to gain the experience necessary to actually compete, person has to emigrate or try and live on the dole.
• Company can't afford to pay someone (or can and worker turns out to be worse than useless), company goes under because they have become extremely unprofitable, entire company workforce out of a job.

Clearly, that proves your hypothesis completely wrong. Oh and where is the waste of money argument coming from? I can understand arguing that it's not a good idea, but, aside from the minimal cost of administration, how is it a waste of money?

Just on the bold points:

1. If a company can't afford to pay staff, something is wrong and that is what needs to be addressed. Whether it's high ESB costs, high rents, etc, throwing free staff at the company doesn't solve the problem.

2. If a worker turns out to be useless, the company has a problem with their hiring process and that is what needs to be addressed.

3. It wastes money in the sense that a lot of these wpp positions would otherwise be paid jobs where the employee and company are contributing
PAYE/PRSI etc to the government, and the government are saving money by not having to continue paying jobseekers allowance to the staff member.

ROTTING CHRIST

28064212 wrote: »

Oh, I agree that it is extremely unlikely that the lack of a WPP option would cause a business to fail. My example was a facetious response to billybigunz "proving" that the WPP was a bad idea.

I don't agree that the WPP doesn't do anything to help companies. It encourages companies to take a chance on a graduate, instead of just battening down the hatches and not hiring anybody for the duration of the recession. It means that there is a chance to grow, instead of stagnating because the resources aren't there to take on some extra staff. And it means that at the end of the 9 months, they have someone who is ready to start immediately without any breaking-in period
Absolutely meaningless stats. I can just as easily point out the increase and say that many positions which are trying to take advantage aren't being filled, so it's only the actually valid positions that are being taken up. Increase in adverts does not mean an increase in take-up.
Actually, it's based on both my and a friend's personal experience on the scheme. What are you basing your "large % of these placements" on?

I assume you're referring to the washroom technician job that was posted on this thread? That was a position in a large multi-national corporation (ISS) which specialises in "Integrated Facility Services", and there was no experience mentioned in the specification. It involved servicing and installing various washroom products. The WPP could be a good chance to get a foot in the door. And if it's not, you can walk out at any time.

Incidentally, ISS are also still hiring for permanent positions, including one which actually is for a cleaner, on top of their WPP position, which has been on the Fás website since January 14

The whole basis behind your argument seems to be that this scheme stops troubled companies going under, and thus saves other workers jobs well.. The idea of the scheme is to give graduates/non-skilled people EXPERIENCE in order to gain future employment, it's not to provide troubled companies with skilled staff. A graduate/non-skilled staff member employed for 6 or 9 months is not going to be able to contribute a substantial enough amount of work to stop the company going under.

But in a weird twist of fate, the companies abusing this scheme looking for skilled staff (I gave an example before of a company looking for someone with a B.Sc in Computer Science AND CCNA qualifed AND experience with TCP/IP AND willing to work shifts) are actually probably preventing themselves going under through ABUSE of the scheme.

28064212

ROTTING CHRIST wrote: »

The whole basis behind your argument seems to be that this scheme stops troubled companies going under, and thus saves other workers jobs well..

No, it's not, I specified in the post you quoted that I was not making a serious point with that argument

rizzla

ROTTING CHRIST wrote: »

The idea of the scheme is to give graduates/non-skilled people EXPERIENCE in order to gain future employment, it's not to provide troubled companies with skilled staff. A graduate/non-skilled staff member employed for 6 or 9 months is not going to be able to contribute a substantial enough amount of work to stop the company going under.

I've got an interview for a WPP on Tursday and this right there is my opinion of it. I've tried getting full-time work to no avail. Most common excuse is lack of experience. I'm hoping this will be the first step on the ladder to my career. I don't mind not getting paid, I still get the dole, and if it does what it's meant to do after the 9 months I should find it easier to find paid full-time work.

rizzla

rizzla wrote: »

I've got an interview for a WPP on Tursday and this right there is my opinion of it. I've tried getting full-time work to no avail. Most common excuse is lack of experience. I'm hoping this will be the first step on the ladder to my career. I don't mind not getting paid, I still get the dole, and if it does what it's meant to do after the 9 months I should find it easier to find paid full-time work.

we could give the 400k unemployed all experience but it wont create jobs

ROTTING CHRIST

Deleted User wrote: »

we could give the 400k unemployed all experience but it wont create jobs

I agree and to add, this scheme actually hinders the creation of jobs. Why would companies spend money creating real jobs when they can piggyback onto this scheme and have free staff paid for by the government (and taxpayer).

rizzla

Valid points, but at least I get out the house if I manage to get it.

clarelad

my placement will only be for 6 months instead of 9,anyone know why this is?

majiktripp

clarelad wrote: »

my placement will only be for 6 months instead of 9,anyone know why this is?

Perhaps ask your employer? Or contact Fas and ask whats up.

Tiddlers

I've posted on this thread before about the positives and the benefits of the WPP scheme and I think there are far too many people speculating about how negative the scheme is. If you don't want to take a WPP job,don't but there's no need to dismiss the scheme altogether as there are plenty of unskilled graduates and non-grads who would jump through hoops to gain some experience.Yeah, there are some companies who seem to be taken advantage of the scheme so when you notice something suspect ,be useful,mention it to FAS and maybe they'll start monitoring the scheme a bit better.

I started a WPP job a couple of months back and they've told me they are going to keep me on and start paying me soon. I'm delighted. So for all the begrudgers, the WPP scheme is not a dead loss all the time and as the amount of jobs being offered on the scheme prolifierates hopefully there'll be more stories like this soon.

Apparently a friend of my brothers just finished up 6 months on a WPP.

They gave him a pat on the back and sent him on his way. I feel that is very, very wrong.

There should be some financial guarantee for the employee. Experience is great, but it doesn't keep a roof over your head.

billybigunz

Tiddlers wrote: »

I've posted on this thread before about the positives and the benefits of the WPP scheme and I think there are far too many people speculating about how negative the scheme is. If you don't want to take a WPP job,don't but there's no need to dismiss the scheme altogether as there are plenty of unskilled graduates and non-grads who would jump through hoops to gain some experience.Yeah, there are some companies who seem to be taken advantage of the scheme so when you notice something suspect ,be useful,mention it to FAS and maybe they'll start monitoring the scheme a bit better.

I started a WPP job a couple of months back and they've told me they are going to keep me on and start paying me soon. I'm delighted. So for all the begrudgers, the WPP scheme is not a dead loss all the time and as the amount of jobs being offered on the scheme prolifierates hopefully there'll be more stories like this soon.

Is that a job that would not have otherwise been there. I get the feeling places like this are just using WPP schemes as extended 9 month interviews.

miec

As with every scheme there are upsides and downsides, for those of you who are in favour of this scheme and where it has benefited you, that is great, the WPP is not all bad, but, it is deeply flawed and is being abused.

there are some companies who seem to be taken advantage of the scheme so when you notice something suspect ,be useful,mention it to FAS and maybe they'll start monitoring the scheme a bit better.

Tiddlers many people from this thread have reported the suspect jobs to FAS, they have done nothing.

I agree and to add, this scheme actually hinders the creation of jobs. Why would companies spend money creating real jobs when they can piggyback onto this scheme and have free staff paid for by the government (and taxpayer).

+ 1 and this is happening, hence the dramatic rise in WPP jobs, why pay someone when the government and taxpayer will fund them. If the WPP scheme was scrapped, then those companies would have to pay someone, and that person would be paying tax and prsi, I cannot understand why those in favour of the scheme dismiss this very vital point.

It encourages companies to take a chance on a graduate

Considering so many WPP jobs advertised seek graduates with experience (and I have posted up a few examples) most graduates still don't have a viable chance of getting in as a lot of people are taking the WPP scheme out of desperation because they hate being unemployed.

Tiddlers

billybigunz wrote: »

Is that a job that would not have otherwise been there. I get the feeling places like this are just using WPP schemes as extended 9 month interviews.

The job came up while I was there. The WPP scheme is not a job creation scheme or incentive after all.Doing the job under the WPP was kind of like my training. And I don't see how there's too much wrong with that. Working for a while on a WPP job should kknock the sense of entitlement out of many young people. I know it made me think long and hard about what I really want from a job and what I'm willing to put in to get what I want.

I have a friend who has been a manager in hotels around Dublin for years now and he says the money that gets wasted while training in people is shocking,especially when they turn out to be incompetent or discover that they're not suited for the job after all. Hearing things like this from my friend make me wonder about the shop assistant or bar tending jobs advertised under the scheme. The cynics in us immediatley jump to the conslusion that there's something fishy going on when really reading a few words on a screen gives only a small glimpse of the job on offer. Though I guess sometimes it's hard to invest trust in a lot of business owners.

billybigunz

Tiddlers wrote: »

The job came up while I was there. The WPP scheme is not a job creation scheme or incentive after all.Doing the job under the WPP was kind of like my training. And I don't see how there's too much wrong with that. Working for a while on a WPP job should kknock the sense of entitlement out of many young people. I know it made me think long and hard about what I really want from a job and what I'm willing to put in to get what I want.

I have a friend who has been a manager in hotels around Dublin for years now and he says the money that gets wasted while training in people is shocking,especially when they turn out to be incompetent or discover that they're not suited for the job after all. Hearing things like this from my friend make me wonder about the shop assistant or bar tending jobs advertised under the scheme. The cynics in us immediatley jump to the conslusion that there's something fishy going on when really reading a few words on a screen gives only a small glimpse of the job on offer. Though I guess sometimes it's hard to invest trust in a lot of business owners.

I have a problem paying for somebodies training when the company should. If people want to do unpaid internships then do it on your own account.

SeaFields

Another great example of the failings of the WPP scheme ...

3. Sales Assistant - Youghal (WPP2) Youghal JB546394

Area of Activity: Retail Sales Assistant. Elements of Experience offered: Stock control; quality control; pro-press steaming; customer care; cash control; house-keeping; window display; floor display; assisting the Manager. Person Specification: An experienced person with a retail background, outgoing and mixes well with volunteers. A good team player.

BostonB

billybigunz wrote: »

I have a problem paying for somebodies training when the company should. If people want to do unpaid internships then do it on your own account.

They can't they'd lose their dole. Your paying the dole not the cost training (assuming there is any). I assume the hope, is that with benefit of experience, on their CV, the person will get a job. Thus taking them off the dole. Saving you money. But you'd prefer to have them on the dole.

That said I don't think its a well thought out scheme. But the negativity on this thread is incredible.

billybigunz

BostonB wrote: »

They can't they'd lose their dole. Your paying the dole not the cost training (assuming there is any). I assume the hope, is that with benefit of experience, on their CV, the person will get a job. Thus taking them off the dole. Saving you money. But you'd prefer to have them on the dole.

It costs money by keeping somebody on the dole that shouldn't be on it. If a company is going to needs to employ someone then they will. If they can't get somebody experienced then just offer a lower wage and train them. That is the way it works.