WPP1 / WPP2

28064212

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

The heart of the matter is: why would any employer pay new staff when they can get highly experienced people free through WPP schemes?

How? What highly experienced people are applying to the WPP? Why would they? For someone with 3+ years experience, another 9 months means absolutely nothing, they have no reason to do it. I agree that companies are chancing their arm by putting up the ads, but the scheme is pretty much self-policed in that regard.

AnnyHallsal

If you cast your eyes a few posts up you will see a person who is currently employed who has admitted to applying for WPP schemes. There are many desperate people on the dole who will choose working for nothing over not working. We can't rely on self-policing, your conjecture or my conjecture.

There is reason to believe the system is being abused - who's going to investigate? Fas? Or shall we rely on the good faith of the companies or assume that all must be well because the experienced, growing restless on the dole with little hope of paid employment, won't apply anyway.

28064212

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

If you cast your eyes a few posts up you will see a person who is currently employed who has admitted to applying for WPP schemes.

lukin's inquiry was based around whether they could get on to the scheme if they became unemployed instantly, rather than 3 weeks in the future. There is nothing to suggest that they are 'highly experienced', or have any relevant experience at all, and it has nothing to do with companies abusing the scheme

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

There are many desperate people on the dole who will choose working for nothing over not working. We can't rely on self-policing, your conjecture or my conjecture.

Desperate for what? Explain to me why someone with plenty of experience would apply for a scheme for gaining experience with no pay?

AnnyHallsal

sarahzxe wrote: »

can i just point out ive applied for a few of these placements havin a got a good degree and for looking experience i havent heard anything back from the employers at all and its been over a week! I rang the fas helpline and they said a few of the jobs i applied for many people applied before me had not got them bcos they werent 'suitable' i thought cos its volunteer work they wouldnt be so fussy!!

I think this girl's experience may be representative. I also have my own anecdotal evidence. I've applied for a number of schemes I'd be suitable for and haven't received a reply. If they are getting hundreds of applications do you honestly believe none will have relevant experience that should disbar them? These are exactly the people the unscrupulous, with their highly specified ads, are in search of.

lukin wrote: »

Ive only got a few weeks left in my current job so if it's a choice between working for a few weeks and then having nothing or leaving early and having experience but dole then it's an easy choice.

This is why experienced people will apply. What many employed people fail to realise is how demoralising the dole is and how many would prefer to be doing something, anything, even for free.

28064212 wrote: »

Desperate for what? Explain to me why someone with plenty of experience would apply for a scheme for gaining experience with no pay?

A lack of alternatives. The figure for long-term unemployment is up. The scheme suddenly looks more attractive than a gaping hole on your CV.

I have no idea why you're defending this scheme so fervently when there is reason to believe it is inhibiting the creation of paid positions. At the very least, it needs to be looked into.

28064212

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I think this girl's experience may be representative. I also have my own anecdotal evidence. I've applied for a number of schemes I'd be suitable for and haven't received a reply. If they are getting hundreds of applications do you honestly believe none will have relevant experience that should disbar them? These are exactly the people the unscrupulous, with their highly specified ads, are in search of.

I have my own anecdotal evidence which show that's not true at all. The plural of anecdote is not data

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

This is why experienced people will apply. What many employed people fail to realise is how demoralising the dole is and how many would prefer to be doing something, anything, even for free.

Or maybe they wanted to start their placement as quick as they could so they could finish it as quickly as possible. I'm well aware of how demoralising the dole is. There's about a thousand things that people with experience could be doing that is much more productive than doing a 40-hour a week job that adds nothing to their CV

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I have no idea why you're defending this scheme so fervently when there is reason to believe it is inhibiting the creation of paid positions. At the very least, it needs to be looked into.

I'm defending it because it's a good scheme that allows new graduates to get experience when they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting a position in the current climate. There is no evidence to suggest that it is inhibiting the creation of paid positions. Of course there aren't many paid positions out there, but that's because we're in a recession, not because of this scheme

Its legalised slavery

28064212

Deleted User wrote: »

Its legalised slavery

Thanks for that useful and informed point about people who can choose it completely of their own volition and can leave at any time

AnnyHallsal

28064212 wrote: »

The plural of anecdote is not data

I didn't say it was. Neither you nor I can prove that the schemes are or are not being abused. I'm asking for data, you appear to be advocating the kind of blind, unquestioning faith upon which corruption thrives.

28064212 wrote: »

Or maybe they wanted to start their placement as quick as they could so they could finish it as quickly as possible.

Lukin mentioned fear of ending up on the dole as justification for applying for a WPP while he is still in employment. I maintain a similar attitude encourages the experienced to apply for positions that should go to the unexperienced. Finish quickly for what exactly? Returning to the dole he fears in the first place? One of those paid positions you admit are so scarce?

28064212 wrote: »

There's about a thousand things that people with experience could be doing that is much more productive than doing a 40-hour a week job that adds nothing to their CV

More beneficial than something that closely resembles their old job?

28064212 wrote: »

I'm defending it because it's a good scheme that allows new graduates to get experience when they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting a position in the current climate.

No-one is denying it's a good scheme when it runs as it should be. Posters here have expressed concern that it is being exploited by those who see a way of getting free labour. The reasonable are not saying the system should be closed down, they are saying it should be monitored and regulated.

28064212 wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that it is inhibiting the creation of paid positions.

So they'd be doing without those waiters and bathroom attendants otherwise then?

billybigunz

I'm defending it because it's a good scheme that allows new graduates to get experience when they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting a position in the current climate.

Any hope they had of finding a paid job dissapeared because of this crazy scheme. If you support it then you support unemployment.

the_syco

28064212 wrote: »

Explain to me why someone with plenty of experience would apply for a scheme for gaining experience with no pay?

Because if you worked your arse off for 5 years, doing nothing on the dole may drive you insane.

28064212 wrote: »

Of course there aren't many paid positions out there, but that's because we're in a recession, not because of this scheme

Actually, it is. By taking on someone for free to be a waiter or barman stops someone from getting that job. Or, as seen in another thread, people have lost their jobs, and the employer has then gotten a couple of WPP people to replace them :mad:

mood

28064212 wrote: »

There's plenty of time to job-hunt even if you are working a 40-hour week. Especially since the companies are required to give you time off for any interviews you haveSo leave after however many months you want. There is no commitment on your part in the WPP. There's no period of notice, the company can't prevent you from leaving. Obviously it's better to be up-front about your intentions from the start if you want a good reference or the potential for a future full-time position with them, but while you don't have the rights of an employee, you also have none of the responsibilites

I disagree. I start applying for jobs etc at 9am so am always early applying and this has helped me get interviews. If you are applying at 8pm and are the 100 person to apply I doubt you would stand a chance.

mood

billybigunz wrote: »

Any hope they had of finding a paid job dissapeared because of this crazy scheme. If you support it then you support unemployment.

Agree. Since the scheme kicked in there are very few real jobs on the FAS website.

__________

Some good ol fashioned capitalism, just what we need to exit this recession.

billybigunz

__________ wrote: »

Some good ol fashioned capitalism, just what we need to exit this recession.

looks like the opposite of capitalism to me. Or maybe you are genuinely saying that is the solution?

__________

Yeah what I was trying to say was the state basically handing over large amounts of cash to private business owners by supplying them with free staff is not the way to get us out of a recession.

I don't trust Fas, this government and our regulation system to provide adequate evaluation, monitoring, etc, which are and would be badly needed for such a scheme as this.

From reading all posts here and looking at examples given by other members, I am greatly concerned.
And, I would like to know; What are the penalties for abusing this system? If any!

Like a lot of things I have noticed in this country, it starts of as a great idea and swiftly turns sour with no one accountable for its failure as service and more importantly, to us, the people.

Forgive my cynicism.

AnnyHallsal

And it's thanks to people who say, It's a great scheme. It's self-regulating. What are you questioning it for? that flawed, corrupt practices can continue unchecked. We know enough about those in this country, you would think.

Raekwon

Just checked Fás there for IT roles, 118 came up.........over half were WPP1/WPP2 non paying roles while the others consisted of mainly foreign language support roles and a few recruiters postings (btw since when have Fás let recruiters post on their site?)

For someone with over 5 years IT experience that makes very depressing reading.

Great job Fás! :mad:

saol alainn

28064212 wrote: »

There's plenty of time to job-hunt even if you are working a 40-hour week. Especially since the companies are required to give you time off for any interviews you haveSo leave after however many months you want. There is no commitment on your part in the WPP. There's no period of notice, the company can't prevent you from leaving. Obviously it's better to be up-front about your intentions from the start if you want a good reference or the potential for a future full-time position with them, but while you don't have the rights of an employee, you also have none of the responsibilites

I'd disagree with that. There isn't plenty of time to job-hunt, unless you think looking up the internet is enough. Why should it be 40 hours anyway? I'm glad to see that some are, in fact, less than that.

Tell the company you're only doing two months? Sure, they'd offer you the place there and then! :rolleyes: From experience, it doesn't pay to be totally up-front about anything. (Whenever I mentioned I don't have extensive experience in payroll, because I hate pretences, I don't even hear a whisper from them after. I'd have expected at least a thank you but you're useless, after an interview.) Especially if, as you say, you're not committed, although I find that a bit difficult to believe. If you're entering into an agreement to do the 9 (or whatever) months, you should do it all. The employer expects it..otherwise why put down the duration in the first place? If I were to say I can only do 2 months, I may, of course, be offered the place. But the probability is that I won't be considered unless I can do the full term.

I think that even if the business were to give, say, €100 to the employee, the employer would still be bagging a bargain and could make a difference to the applicant. But then the same position cannot be filled again when the 'contract' expires, and there has to be a time limit on it. Because if the business needs that position filled again, then it means it should be a paid position.

Someone on the pin started this:
For anyone interested:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/End-the-FAS-work-place-programme-WWP1-WWP2/109792949040367?v=wall&ref=ts
Im not into facebook movements but alot of people are surprised when they hear about this scheme... no harm getting it out there I suppose

Eliza Lynch

Maybe the problem isnt the scheme as such (I am on it just to say), but FAS, the way it is run, the thinking or lack thereof behind it, and the governments reluctance to deal with unemployment?

I have found it to be inefficent and the more I read here the more I question it.

Good idea gone astray is how I would describe it.

leniman10

I'm currently on the fas WPP1 scheme, i get €196 a week from social welfare, have to sign on once a month as usual (by post cause i'm working away from home) i only get travel allowance from my employer which aint much cause i'm mainly in the office, I work 35hrs a week. I dont actually work directly for them, i can job hunt away or leave when ever i want but the experience is worth an awful lot more than sitting at home on the dole. I finished college in may and have a degree in construction, there was absolutely nothin else out there for me. Every other job is lookin for someone with experience, even the jobs abroad. The money is tight, i'm stayin wit relations but wouldn't last a day if i was paying rent and bills. They really do need to up the money for this to make it more popular, by at least €100. I recently had a meeting with someone from fas to see how I was gettin on in the job and I mentioned gettin more money but he said twas nothing to do wit them.
It is a great scheme for graduates like myself to get experience but cant see anyone wit more than 4 - 5 years experience goin for it when the money is so tight...
It is basically workin for nothin but sur what can you do when theres no other jobs in my line of work...

billybigunz

Retrain or emigrate. You won't ever be working here in your chosen field of study. A sad reality for tens of thousands.

BostonB

No different to the 80's early 90's. No jobs back then either. It will come around again.

AnnyHallsal

BostonB wrote: »

No different to the 80's early 90's. No jobs back then either. It will come around again.

Well, it is quite different, unfortunately. Not least because there really aren't that many places to emigrate to. Hope you're right, though.

miec

There is the basis of a significant piece of investigative journalism here.

Hi AnnyHassall, unfortunately you are right, the media are not interested in this particular story as I have contacted them on this issue and I know others have as well. It seems they are more interested in other issues than this one.

AnnyHallsal

miec wrote: »

Hi AnnyHassall, unfortunately you are right, the media are not interested in this particular story as I have contacted them on this issue and I know others have as well. It seems they are more interested in other issues than this one.

Good on you, Miec.

maninasia

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

The heart of the matter is: why would any employer pay new staff when they can get highly experienced people free through WPP schemes?

Any ad that states experience is required is flouting the purpose of the scheme. Ads posted here prove that the system is being abused. And businesses are using it to get low-skilled/non-skilled labour for free.

This is detrimental to the economy if it is inhibiting the creation of paid employment.

If positions were going to people with no experience and were being offered by companies that genuinely could not pay a new employee, it would be beneficial to both. At present, it is ludicrously exposed to exploitation.

There is the basis of a significant piece of investigative journalism here.

Where's the prime-time investigation etc., whatever happened to Ireland's tradition of investigative journalism, lost?!? Are journalists and media really that pathetic that discussion boards are the only place we can read about this flagrant abuse?

Can the media even identify a good story? It's here sitting on a plate for them and it is OF DEFINITE INTEREST to a large percentage of the population.

AnnyHallsal

I wonder why they're not interested. Do they think it's not worthy of a story? That the country has more pressing concerns? That their audience aren't interested? Or they don't want to open a can of worms?

the_syco

saol alainn wrote: »

I think that even if the business were to give, say, €100 to the employee, the employer would still be bagging a bargain and could make a difference to the applicant.

Agreed, but at the same time, this could then be seen as a long term option for the employee, as they'd be getting €300 a week.

BostonB wrote: »

No different to the 80's early 90's. No jobs back then either. It will come around again.

What will come around again? Devaluation of the punt to get companies set up here cheaply?