WPP

someday2010

A few questions in relation to the latest exploitative craze that is sweeping the jobs market WPP (Work for Pathetic Pay) . It seems every employer in the country is jumping on the band wagon and advertising the most dubious of jobs as WPP.


Q1. If I decide after a few days that I don't like my new employer can I just resign and go straight back on the dole or will there be implications on my ability to claim social welfare


Q2. Can I just do a 3 day week or does it have to be a 5 day week.

Oh_Noes

Work for Pathetic pay? I keep coming across these "jobs" that require a degree and experience yet don't offer a salary, no pay. Not even "pathetic pay".

It's exploitation of the highest order and the people chancing their arms with this should be ashamed of themselves. This practice should be banned outright.

Q1. If you decide you don't like it then just walk away. If you don't have a job then the state has to give you social welfare, if you were qualified for the dole beforehand then you will still qualify.

Q2. Do as many days as you like, they aren't paying you therefore you have no obligation to work what they want you to.

In my humble opinion, anyone who takes one of these positions is being un-patriotic and screwing the rest of us over. This carry-on needs to be stopped immediately, it's shameful exploitation of vulnerable people.

mr.interested

Oh_Noes wrote: »

In my humble opinion, anyone who takes one of these positions is being un-patriotic and screwing the rest of us over. This carry-on needs to be stopped immediately, it's shameful exploitation of vulnerable people.

The idea of WPP is good, but it's so badly implemented. It should be only for those without any experience, and the companies should be monitored very closely to make sure that they "employing" targeted people. Also, 9 months it's far too long, 3-6 would do.

gollem_1975

mr.interested wrote: »

The idea of WPP is good, but it's so badly implemented. It should be only for those without any experience, and the companies should be monitored very closely to make sure that they "employing" targeted people. Also, 9 months it's far too long, 3-6 would do.

so because I have "experience" I shouldn't be able to apply for the position.

why not ?

with regards to experience would you think it would be better to have 9 months experience on your CV or 3 months ? I think it would be better to have 9 months.

as another poster 240212..etc. said.. if you are not getting good experience from the WPP position then leave after 3 months if you want.

if you are being exploited in the position contact Fas and your employer will not be able to re-apply for WPP employees ( they have to register the positions through Fas )

you are not obliged to stay the 9 months.

the beauty of this scheme is that its not highly formalised.

It is left up to the employer and the employee to sort out the implementation details.

As for the unpatriotic argument raised by the other poster

oh noes wrote:

In my humble opinion, anyone who takes one of these positions is being un-patriotic and screwing the rest of us over. This carry-on needs to be stopped immediately, it's shameful exploitation of vulnerable people.

this is not the politics board.
the country does not owe you a living .

you have to go out and make your own opportunities , and if the 9 months WPP experience puts me in a better position to get me a job ( and to be honest I have more faith in my WPP experience than my 12 month Msc in getting me a job ) then the experience will have been worthwhile.

the reality is that me you and all the rest of the unemployed are competing for jobs against eachother. thats the way it has been, is and always will be.

I don't know what you expect a collective boycott of the WPP to achieve.

The main argument against WPP is that people think it is displacing Full-time,Full paid equivalent jobs. I don't believe this to be the case, it most definitely is not the case in my case.

Personally I think that high wages of people currently employed is displacing more employment opportunities than WPP. i.e. if people currently employed were not being paid so much then employers could afford to employ more people.

road_high

Totally agree. Should be reserved soley for those without exp as a mechanism for them to gain some and fill their CV.

gollem_1975

mfitzy wrote: »

Totally agree. Should be reserved soley for those without exp as a mechanism for them to gain some and fill their CV.

have to disagree with you. why should people with experience be excluded from these opportunities.

targeting of employees , closely monitoring that they have no experience and a more heavy involvement of Fas in implementing this scheme would not provide good value for government money ( i.e. our money) - which as you know is scarce at the moment.

Its best( if not entirely ideal) to let prospective employees and employers sort out the detail between themselves.

One of the key points about WPP is that people can keep their Job seekers benefit while participating in the scheme ( working )

Individual companies are free to set up their own unpaid internships for people with no experience and always have been ( however during the boom very few companies/industries would attract unpaid staff )

WPP should be open to whoever wants to do it imo.

sellerbarry

It's funny how, before the recession started these placements were few and far between. Now that companies are a bit short, it's (get yourself a slave free) time.

gollem_1975

sellerbarry wrote: »

It's funny how, before the recession started these placements were few and far between. Now that companies are a bit short, it's (get yourself a slave free) time.

Neither funny nor particularly perceptive of you to make that observation

there was full employment during the boom!

There was no demand/need for general schemes such as WPP ( There would still have been demand for unpaid internship positions in the media professions even during the boom - its amazing what you can learn from reading the wifes Glamour magazine! )

During the boom employers couldn't get enough staff at pay rates that now would be considered to be quite good let alone hire people with the carrot of "on the job experience"

dragging the concept of slavery into a discussion of WPP should be "work and jobs" version of godwins law imho