WPP1 / WPP2

clarelad · 18-02-2010 11:54pm

i enquired about an I.T position the other day with fas,rang the company and they told me they were looking for someone with roughly 3 years work experience lol,would love to see it highlighted on joe duffy or similar...

19-02-2010 12:11am

miec wrote: »

Fair play to you, I think the scheme is being openly abused. Here are a few WWP1 examples I saw today:

...

The Help Desk Technician and Accounts ones are obviously taking the piss, but the others certainly have legitimate cases for being in this scheme (depending on exactly what the company in question is looking for). What I don't understand is how these positions are a threat to anyone. There is no way someone with the experience required for the Help Desk position would take an unpaid job. It would be completely pointless. They're unlikely to learn anything new, or gain any extra skills, and it would mean virtually nothing on their CV. In a case like that, Raekwon would be right, the employee would gain almost nothing doing it. So they won't do it. I would be absolutely shocked if that position was filled by someone who meets their requirements.

__________ · 19-02-2010 2:57am

People participating in these is actually dangerous for the entire profession they are working in. It will seriously devalue the industry. I don't need to explain how. I would urge anyone doing it to quit now and anyone thinking about doing it to think again.

19-02-2010 10:27am

__________ wrote: »

People participating in these is actually dangerous for the entire profession they are working in. It will seriously devalue the industry. I don't need to explain how. I would urge anyone doing it to quit now and anyone thinking about doing it to think again.

So you haven't read any of the arguments? You can safely dismiss it without contributing any of your reasons why? Is an industry more seriously devalued by having loads of graduates sitting on the dole, or by having them gain some practical experience?

loctite · 19-02-2010 12:19pm

28064212 wrote: »

Is an industry more seriously devalued by having loads of graduates sitting on the dole, or by having them gain some practical experience?

Nobody would argue that gaining work experience will do anybody any harm. It maybe a relatively new concept to the Irish Labour market but on this scale and for the quality of jobs offered this is taking complete advantage of the labour force.

I follow the jobs page frequently for my area and I have seen paid positions converted into WPP's. Infact, it was a laundrette. Forgive me for being cynical, but I don't think anyone needs to work for 9 months unpaid in a laundrette to gain experience that will be practically worthless.

This should not have been allowed to happen and is complete abuse. Less than 1 month ago they were willing to pay the staff, but now they are not. Plain and simple this is an abuse of the program.

No offence to you, but F*** your free market attitude to WPP's. i.e. No one will apply for X positions which require experience. Well please, pray tell, why are more and more of these positions appearing??

You may be happy to pay to work, you may be happy for other peoples taxes to pay businesses payrolls, but I am not. And no, I do get the fundamental point of the program. To re-skil/re-train and gain experience. But not at the cost of other peoples jobs & their dignity.

Guell72 · 19-02-2010 1:20pm

28064212 wrote: »

So you haven't read any of the arguments? You can safely dismiss it without contributing any of your reasons why? Is an industry more seriously devalued by having loads of graduates sitting on the dole, or by having them gain some practical experience?

You dont really have any arguments tbh.
I think the proof of how bad for the country this scheme is has been posted here many times already, but you still dont seem to want to see it for what it is.

19-02-2010 2:07pm

loctite wrote: »

I follow the jobs page frequently for my area and I have seen paid positions converted into WPP's. Infact, it was a laundrette. Forgive me for being cynical, but I don't think anyone needs to work for 9 months unpaid in a laundrette to gain experience that will be practically worthless.

I have my own doubts about the worth of the WPP2 stream, the one for people with no qualifications. For certain areas it may be useful e.g. the HGV driver mentioned above, but for many of the positions, no, I don't see any advantage for an employee.

loctite wrote: »

No offence to you, but F*** your free market attitude to WPP's. i.e. No one will apply for X positions which require experience. Well please, pray tell, why are more and more of these positions appearing??

Maybe because setting up an advertisement doesn't reflect how many people apply for it? I know a couple of people on WPP, all of them looking for work experience because they don't have any, and when you don't have any, it's worth more than a salary. I didn't take any offence, but it's my opinion, and I believe it's right. When someone has even 3 years experience, an extra 9 months means nothing. Why would an employee apply for them?

loctite wrote: »

You may be happy to pay to work, you may be happy for other peoples taxes to pay businesses payrolls, but I am not.

As opposed to other people's taxes being used to pay people to do nothing? The cost to the tax-payer is the same regardless. And I'm not paying to work. And if I was, I'd be paying to gain relevant work experience, which is worth a huge amount to me.

Guell72 wrote: »

You dont really have any arguments tbh.
I think the proof of how bad for the country this scheme is has been posted here many times already, but you still dont seem to want to see it for what it is.

You're the one who brought up GAMA and the international press, and you're accusing me of not having arguments? Go through my last long post and see if you can address any of the points I made. As for proof that it's bad? I'm certainly not claiming I have proof that it's a good thing, just posting arguments showing my opinion that it is

Frenzy · 19-02-2010 3:10pm

I've just graduated from architecture and have absolutely no chance of getting a paid job for at least the next 2 years.

I applied for the OPW graduate scheme before Christmas but didn’t get one of the 16 positions with a guaranteed salary of €37,500 for 3 years! Which with the current state of Irelands finances is pretty scandalous but to be honest it’s what I expect to see from the completely out of touch bosses in the public sector!

I sent out another round of CVs in January and applied to a few WPP1 schemes.

I'm now working in a very good office on the WPP1 scheme. My boss wants to give me some extra money (500 a month) on top of the 196 per week I'm getting from social welfare, as he doesn’t think its enough to live on.

He's called FAS and they have no problem with doing this but they said that its an issue for the social welfare. So how can my employer get around paying me an extra cash top up without any legal implications on either of our parts?

There's no way I'm going to contact the social welfare about this, if they get any indication of me getting extra money they'll take me off any payments.

Surely this should be brought in as part of the WPP1 scheme as I'm going to be spending almost half my weekly income on transport, lunch etc...

theresao · 19-02-2010 3:38pm

The Employer can put it through as expenses

Guell72 · 19-02-2010 4:55pm

Frenzy wrote: »

I've just graduated from architecture and have absolutely no chance of getting a paid job for at least the next 2 years.

I applied for the OPW graduate scheme before Christmas but didn’t get one of the 16 positions with a guaranteed salary of €37,500 for 3 years! Which with the current state of Irelands finances is pretty scandalous but to be honest it’s what I expect to see from the completely out of touch bosses in the public sector!

I sent out another round of CVs in January and applied to a few WPP1 schemes.

I'm now working in a very good office on the WPP1 scheme. My boss wants to give me some extra money (500 a month) on top of the 196 per week I'm getting from social welfare, as he doesn’t think its enough to live on.

He's called FAS and they have no problem with doing this but they said that its an issue for the social welfare. So how can my employer get around paying me an extra cash top up without any legal implications on either of our parts?

There's no way I'm going to contact the social welfare about this, if they get any indication of me getting extra money they'll take me off any payments.

Surely this should be brought in as part of the WPP1 scheme as I'm going to be spending almost half my weekly income on transport, lunch etc...

I suppose abuse of the scheme can come from both employer and employee alike. The tax payer loses, again.

19-02-2010 5:26pm

Frenzy wrote: »

I'm now working in a very good office on the WPP1 scheme. My boss wants to give me some extra money (500 a month) on top of the 196 per week I'm getting from social welfare, as he doesn’t think its enough to live on.

He's called FAS and they have no problem with doing this but they said that its an issue for the social welfare. So how can my employer get around paying me an extra cash top up without any legal implications on either of our parts?

There's no way I'm going to contact the social welfare about this, if they get any indication of me getting extra money they'll take me off any payments.

Surely this should be brought in as part of the WPP1 scheme as I'm going to be spending almost half my weekly income on transport, lunch etc...

As far as I can see, there is no mechanism for it. The Welfare department doesn't seem to have even considered it. It's not part-time work, so you can't report it as that. You're not actually employed, so it can't be a wage. From your employer's point of view they can write it off as expenses. From your point of view, there doesn't seem to be any onus on you to report it, and I'm not sure who you could report it to if there was. It's silly on Fás and Welfare's part that they haven't considered it.

Guell72 wrote: »

I suppose abuse of the scheme can come from both employer and employee alike. The tax payer loses, again.

Where's the abuse here exactly? The only thing that isn't being taken into account is the fact that he's not paying tax on his earnings, and that's because there is no facility for him to do so. It's definitely an oversight on Fás' and/or Welfare's part, but hardly constitutes abuse of the scheme

Guell72 · 19-02-2010 7:09pm

28064212 wrote: »

Where's the abuse here exactly? The only thing that isn't being taken into account is the fact that he's not paying tax on his earnings, and that's because there is no facility for him to do so. It's definitely an oversight on Fás' and/or Welfare's part, but hardly constitutes abuse of the scheme

Those rose tinted glasses you are wearing are really getting fogged up arent they.
The abuse is that the tax payer is paying his wages (did you think the money came from the sky?) and here he is looking for more money on top of it and not declaring it. So the tax payer pays him €200 a week for 9 months and then he gets a bonus too. How about asking his employer to take him on full time and leave the slave scheme right now, if he's so happy with his work already. But he wont because he has a 9 month slave at the tax payers expense.

Why do you think hes not telling social welfare? Because they would recognize it as abuse of the scheme.

donkey balls · 19-02-2010 8:01pm

i was speaking again to a FAS officer about these wpp and the response was contact your local TD.im surprised this has not caught the attention of the media i would like to see matt cooper ask calamity coughlan about the abuse of these schemes i can only imagine the reply(in the context going forward etc):rolleyes:.

so who is up for getting in contact with a media outlet maybe if we all e-mail one station they might take notice.

__________ · 19-02-2010 8:15pm

28064212 wrote: »

So you haven't read any of the arguments? You can safely dismiss it without contributing any of your reasons why? Is an industry more seriously devalued by having loads of graduates sitting on the dole, or by having them gain some practical experience?

I didn't deem it necessary to explain, thought it was very straight-forward but apparently I was mistaken.

If companies can hire people into a particular job for €0 (e.g. IT admin), and even on the slight chance they are offered a full time position at the end (which is unlikely considering the type of companies who participate in this scheme - those who have no money) the position would be for minimum wage which the staff would be happy with considering it's almost double the rate of their current income, a 100% pay rise, who wouldn't take it in their position.

So now another company needs an IT admin, why would they start someone on €30k/year when they can get staff for free for the first 9 months and then mimimum wage after ?

If enough companies get involved (which they will as companies are always trying to cut costs) , the average salary for that position will drop.

stupidusername · 19-02-2010 8:24pm

donkey balls wrote: »

i was speaking again to a FAS officer about these wpp and the response was contact your local TD.im surprised this has not caught the attention of the media i would like to see matt cooper ask calamity coughlan about the abuse of these schemes i can only imagine the reply(in the context going forward etc):rolleyes:.

so who is up for getting in contact with a media outlet maybe if we all e-mail one station they might take notice.

http://www.todayfm.com/Shows/Weekdays/Matt-Cooper/contact_us.aspx

AND

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/

donkey balls · 19-02-2010 8:33pm

thanks for the link stupidusername i couldnt see myself geting in contact with talk to joe:) cooper might be the better option

stupidusername · 19-02-2010 8:43pm

donkey balls wrote: »

thanks for the link stupidusername i couldnt see myself geting in contact with talk to joe:) cooper might be the better option

Go for it. I would only I don't have personal experience of this. Although looking at the WPPs I do see a lot asking for experience in all sorts.

Guell72 · 19-02-2010 10:11pm

stupidusername wrote: »

http://www.todayfm.com/Shows/Weekdays/Matt-Cooper/contact_us.aspx

AND

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/

I've emailed Newstalk and Joe Duffy with what I know.
Sure all you have to do is point them to this thread for examples, straight from the FAS website.

AARRRGH · 20-02-2010 3:18pm

As both an employee and employer, I think this is a great scheme. Yes, I know it's easier to sit at home **** all day while on the dole, but having a regular routine and a bit of hope will stop you getting depressed, and experience counts for so much when looking for a job.

I would be a supporter of "work for the dole" anyway and would see this as a decent compromise.

__________ · 20-02-2010 3:57pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

As both an employee and employer, I think this is a great scheme. Yes, I know it's easier to sit at home **** all day while on the dole, but having a regular routine and a bit of hope will stop you getting depressed, and experience counts for so much when looking for a job.

I would be a supporter of "work for the dole" anyway and would see this as a decent compromise.

Thank you for your completely unbiased opinion.

AARRRGH · 20-02-2010 5:23pm

__________ wrote: »

Thank you for your completely unbiased opinion.

Not sure what point you're trying to make with that comment.

Guell72 · 20-02-2010 5:48pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

Not sure what point you're trying to make with that comment.

Its clear as day what point he is making. He even bolded it for you.

AARRRGH · 20-02-2010 6:11pm

Guell72 wrote: »

Its clear as day what point he is making. He even bolded it for you.

No, it's not clear as day, because his point makes no sense.

But if I had to make a stab at it, it appears my (relevant) opinion on WPP1/WPP2 has upset him because I happen to also support the concept of working for the dole, and he would rather no one had any other opinions on any other related topics when posting on boards.ie.

If you can't see how silly that is, well, what can I say...

Guell72 · 20-02-2010 6:24pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

No, it's not clear as day, because his point makes no sense.

But if I had to make a stab at it, it appears my (relevant) opinion on WPP1/WPP2 has upset him because I happen to also support the concept of working for the dole, and he would rather no one had any other opinions on any other related topics when posting on boards.ie.

If you can't see how silly that is, well, what can I say...

Im sure you are the only one then that doesnt get the point he was making.

Calm down. Dont worry about it. It will dawn on you eventually.

AARRRGH · 20-02-2010 6:25pm

Guell72 wrote: »

Im sure you are the only one then that doesnt get the point he was making.

Calm down. Dont worry about it. It will dawn on you eventually.

OK, will you explain his point to me?

Guell72 · 20-02-2010 6:37pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

OK, will you explain his point to me?

OMG. If you dont get it already, there is really no point in explaining it to you.
Just forget about it then.

AARRRGH · 20-02-2010 6:39pm

Guell72 wrote: »

OMG. If you dont get it already, there is really no point in explaining it to you.
Just forget about it then.

I had a feeling you'd reply with something like that. Why? Because you now realise his point makes no sense and is stupid. Well done.

Guell72 · 20-02-2010 6:47pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

I had a feeling you'd reply with something like that. Why? Because you now realise his point makes no sense and is stupid. Well done.

Oh dear. It really is lost on you isnt it? Sorry if I upset you. Calm down a bit :rolleyes:

AARRRGH · 20-02-2010 6:55pm

Guell72 wrote: »

Oh dear. It really is lost on you isnt it? Sorry if I upset you. Calm down a bit :rolleyes:

I'm not upset, I just find it funny you aren't able to explain something which is apparently so obvious. Of course, we both know why you can't do that, so you'd rather keep digging.

Guell72 · 20-02-2010 7:16pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm not upset, I just find it funny you aren't able to explain something which is apparently so obvious. Of course, we both know why you can't do that, so you'd rather keep digging.

Im not arguing anymore. If you cant figure it out. Dont bother trying. Seriously.
I give up. Thats the last you'll hear from me on it.
Other posters, sorry for the off topic posts.

WPP1 / WPP2

Comments