# FAS WWP1 & WWP2 programmes abused by employers who recycle their workers every 9mo!



## dmb (8 Sep 2010)

Hi,
  My friend is currently looking for a job as he has just recently returned from 2 years in Australia. 

He was telling me that he went into FAS to register and check jobs. He noticed a Job for a Van Driver and went to apply only to find out it was a WWP job where it seems you don't get paid to do the job but you get to keep your JSA. 

The FAS placement officer told him that the WWP Programme was to enable job-seekers to gain experience. 

I feel that this WWP system is being abused by employers who simply recycle there workers every 9 months!

What possible experience could you gain van driving if you already passed your driving test?

I have noticed here now that FAS in my location have jobs advertised for Van Driver, Shop Assistant, and Cleaner under this WWP system!


----------



## Lillywhite10 (8 Sep 2010)

I have a small IT company and we currently have a guy working for us on the WWP program. His 9 months are due to finish up in November but we are going to take him on as a paid employee in October. We are then going to look for a replacement for him under the WWP program for another 9 months. From a small company perspective, it is a great way to get someone working in your company for a few months to see how good they are and also allow them to gain experience in our company. Even if we hadn't taken this guy on, he was gaining valuable experience that would stand to him in future jobs. It is also nice to see people that have a bit of get up and go and want to work and try to get ahead even if they are not getting a salary out of it. I see your point on the low skilled jobs, but if the job is in an area that you want to get into like Van Driving then it is worth doing as you are gaining experience and even if that company can't give you a job at the end of it, you will get a reference from them. At least you will be doing something for the 9 months and employers like to see people that are doing something productive with their time even if they are on the dole.


----------



## Setanta12 (8 Sep 2010)

I see that the Labour Party sourced some headquarter staff this way !

Workers Rights, indeed !


----------



## Staples (8 Sep 2010)

The WPPs are designed for a particular purpose and if managed properly can be very valuable to jobseekers.  

Somebody with a commercial driving licence, for example, would find it difficult to get work without some evidence of experience.


----------



## Maynooth (8 Sep 2010)

Lillywhite10 said:


> I have a small IT company and we currently have a guy working for us on the WWP program. His 9 months are due to finish up in November but we are going to take him on as a paid employee in October. We are then going to look for a replacement for him under the WWP program for another 9 months. From a small company perspective, it is a great way to get someone working in your company for a few months to see how good they are and also allow them to gain experience in our company. Even if we hadn't taken this guy on, he was gaining valuable experience that would stand to him in future jobs. It is also nice to see people that have a bit of get up and go and want to work and try to get ahead even if they are not getting a salary out of it. I see your point on the low skilled jobs, but if the job is in an area that you want to get into like Van Driving then it is worth doing as you are gaining experience and even if that company can't give you a job at the end of it, you will get a reference from them. At least you will be doing something for the 9 months and employers like to see people that are doing something productive with their time even if they are on the dole.





Why didn't you just hire a person on a minimum wage and train them up? If they weren't up to scratch then you could have let them go. If they were good you could offer a decent wage. 

Why should the star subsidise your staff hiring?


----------



## dmb (8 Sep 2010)

Maynooth said:


> Why didn't you just hire a person on a minimum wage and train them up? If they weren't up to scratch then you could have let them go. If they were good you could offer a decent wage.
> 
> Why should the star subsidise your staff hiring?


Totally agree!.. I think this system is being abused by companies who are recycling workers every 9 months, At least the guy fianlly got hired with lillywhite10's IT company but I dont get why the tax payer should have to fund this, and I dont feel its good for the jobseeker I think its demoralising and humilliating for them working for no salary but im sure there are people who think otherwise. I also cant see what expeirance a cleaner or shop assistant needs to gain on working for free, if anything it lets any future employer see they are willing to work for free so il get away with paying them the bare minimum and treat them like dirt. The WWP2 programme also seems to be unfair and abused, expecting graduates who have spent years and lots of money educating themselves are also expected to work for free. Maybe im wrong but I dont think it actually helps the current state the country is in by having the state fund companies to exploit employees rights and conditions ect.


----------



## pudds (8 Sep 2010)

> I dont get why the tax payer should have to fund this




But were not....well not directly anyway....these people are only working for their dole and the bit of experience.




> The placement is unpaid and voluntary. However, if you are already  in receipt of certain social welfare payments, you may be allowed to  retain your payment while on a placement.




I can see a lot of abuse of the scheme  but it should be of use to some folk...better than sitting at home...Been there have the Teeshirt.....


----------



## dmb (8 Sep 2010)

pudds said:


> But were not....well not directly anyway....these people are only working for their dole and the bit of experience....


Wel I cant see how we as tax payers are not funding this to be honest!!..  It is of much more benifit to the employer who has to pay the jobseeker nothing thus the country gets no TAX, PRSI ect for the employee, but instead the country pays the employee, I agree that it is a good system for some people who genuinly need expeirance to get work but I never heard of anyone not getting a cleaning job bcos they had no expeirance!..Abuse!!.. 
My wife, done psycology at university and unless she had expeirance she simply could not get a job but no one wanted to hire anyone who had no one expeireance so it left her in limbo!!.. Cant work cos you have no expeirance but can get expeirance bcos we dont want to hire someone without it !!.. _It would have suited her perfectly i feel, but i notice that the whole system is geared towards people gaining expeirance so no expeirance is needed to apply for a job under the_ is what FAS says. but a number of Jobs I found have "Must be fully expeiranced" "If not fully expeiranced do not apply" and another WWP job says " Unexpeiranced applications will not be considered" . how is this not abuse of the system, Clearly exploitation in my veiw anyway.


----------



## enoxy (9 Sep 2010)

Could the poster above spell check their posts in future, it is so difficult to read such a badly written, mis-spelt post. 

Before you say I'm nit picking, let me reiterate it's really bad form to write badly and in text speak on a forum like this.


----------



## WicklowMan (9 Sep 2010)

Overall I think that the WPP is a terrible idea. Firstly, imo, no one's labour is worthless. Before someone says "but they get dole for it", eh, hang on a minute ... that's what people have paid taxes and other contributions for during their working lives ... two seperate issues there.

What I can see happening for the next 10 - 15 years is that jobs will be judged against a backdrop of free employees. Free will become the new bedrock, and let's face it, many Irish employers can be scabby at the best of times without any encouragement ... look at how many foreigners got treated during the boom. It sends out entirely the wrong message I think.

During the good times I was reminded quite a bit of 1970's British Leyland management speak. Some SME groups in this country seem to be habitual whingers, and it would seem that running slaves might be option if they were allowed. It's the old thing of the Chairman driving the Jag and forgetting how he could afford it.

I can understand a system for cheaper labour whereby the employee / employer benefit where this is absolutely necessary, but look at what is actually happening under this scheme. For example, an I.T. company (multinational) with a profit of 2.2 billion USD announced earlier this year ... now why do they need employees for nothing?

I do however think that the WPP scheme would be a fantastic idea for our politicians and w ... bankers. In fact working them in the fields would be a great idea. Let them do some of the much vaunted "Giving something back" considering they are mainly responsible for screwing up the country.


----------



## Marietta (9 Sep 2010)

Politics.ie are calling it another FAS scam.

Wpp1/2 Latest Fas Scam http://www.politics.ie/economy/126386-wpp1-2-latest-fas-scam.html



Boards.ie have a long thread on this, the following is an example:

I applied to a WPP1 about a week ago and they rang me recently for a phone interview. The phone interview went pretty well (I thought). But at the end of it he said they had applications from people with 'more experience[broken link removed] in the industry' and that they would be more likely to get the placement. 


*My question is, if you have experience why would you apply for an unpaid WPP?* 
[broken link removed]



Would somebody in the know please answer the above question for me please???? Personally I think this scheme is a disgrace.


----------



## dmb (9 Sep 2010)

enoxy said:


> Could the poster above spell check their posts in future, it is so difficult to read such a badly written, mis-spelt post.
> 
> Before you say I'm nit picking, let me reiterate it's really bad form to write badly and in text speak on a forum like this.


Point taken enoxy, If I had known you had trouble reading I would have done a spell check especially for you!.. but I think most people have got the jist of what I ment without as you put it yourself "Nit Picking". But then again the other posters actually give some input to the topic being discissed unlike you!.. As the saying goes, if you have nothing helpfull to say, say nothing at all !.. or something like that!!..


----------



## dmb (9 Sep 2010)

WicklowMan said:


> Overall I think that the WPP is a terrible idea. Firstly, imo, no one's labour is worthless. Before someone says "but they get dole for it", eh, hang on a minute ... that's what people have paid taxes and other contributions for during their working lives ... two seperate issues there.
> 
> What I can see happening for the next 10 - 15 years is that jobs will be judged against a backdrop of free employees. Free will become the new bedrock, and let's face it, many Irish employers can be scabby at the best of times without any encouragement ... look at how many foreigners got treated during the boom. It sends out entirely the wrong message I think.
> 
> ...


Couldnt Agree with you more WicklowMan and Very well said.. A+


----------



## enoxy (9 Sep 2010)

For the OP's benefit I think it's a good scheme - it gives people with low skills or little vocational 'hours on the clock' an opportunity to get some real-world experience (note the correct spelling of this word 'experience' as you have misspelt it lots of times above!). People like your wife with a degree, like thousands of others,  but lacking in practical knowledge  of the ways of working in a structured environment could benefit from the self discipline that comes with clocking in for a working week. The scheme could lead to a more meaningful role down the road.

To sum up, basically I disagree with OPs opinion and think his articulation, grammar, spelling and powers of expression have a lot of scope for improvement. Cheers, .


----------



## Meathman99 (9 Sep 2010)

Have been looking at various jobs on this scheme.  Best job description I saw stated Person specification*: Engineering Degree (mech/civil/marine) with Min *5 yrs *relevant experience   
Surely with minimum 5 years relevant experience you might expect minimum wage in even the most demanding job


----------



## Eamonn T (10 Sep 2010)

enoxy said:


> Could the poster above spell check their posts in future, it is so difficult to read such a badly written, mis-spelt post.
> 
> Before you say I'm nit picking, let me reiterate it's really bad form to write badly and in text speak on a forum like this.


Well I had no difficulty reading or understanding it, doesnt seem like anyone else did either and whats that got to do with the topic of the post?..  Why senselessly attack a member who is giving his opinion ( which is what this site is for ) like I noticed you did not ! 
Perhaps you should read posting guidlines #10 & #19 !..


----------



## dmb (10 Sep 2010)

enoxy said:


> For the OP's benefit I think it's a good scheme - it gives people with low skills or little vocational 'hours on the clock' an opportunity to get some real-world experience (note the correct spelling of this word 'experience' as you have misspelt it lots of times above!). People like your wife with a degree, like thousands of others,  but lacking in practical knowledge  of the ways of working in a structured environment could benefit from the self discipline that comes with clocking in for a working week. The scheme could lead to a more meaningful role down the road.
> 
> To sum up, basically I disagree with OPs opinion and think his articulation, grammar, spelling and powers of expression have a lot of scope for improvement. Cheers, .


   I apologise if you do not agree with my opinion or my view has rubbed you up the wrong way but I was under the impression that was what this site was for, giving my opinion and my view!..
I certainly was not looking to be confrontational with anyone nor did I deserve an attack from someone who didn’t even give any opinions or views on the topic being discussed. 
I didn’t say I was totally against the scheme, my complaint about it is that companies are abusing it to get free labour and I as a TAX PAYER (not someone like you on Jobseekers since 2008, from reading your previous post dated 23-10-2008
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=95366
And also
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1067976#post1067976
 dated 04-08-2010, which clearly indicates that you are still receiving Jobseekers) am not happy that I contribute to funding free labour for other employers. I have to wonder though, if you feel they are such a great scheme, (1) why are you not currently on one (there are plenty of them to choose from). Or (2) have you recently done one? 
If you have it has obviously not been highly beneficial to you when you are still receiving Jobseekers. 
I find it strange to be getting a lecture from someone who draws every benefit available (which I help fund with my TAX & PRSI contributions). I may have made some spelling mistakes, fair enough, but I also have to wonder why someone like yourself with such perfect "articulation, grammar, spelling and powers of expression" is sitting on Jobseekers for over 2 years to begin with!..
You can say what you want about my spelling or grammar but I sure would not be caught sitting on Jobseekers for 2 years, especially if I was as highly intelligent as you!. Thanks for your eventual input however!.


----------



## Paul G (10 Sep 2010)

dmb said:


> I apologise if you do not agree with my opinion or my view has rubbed you up the wrong way but I was under the impression that was what this site was for, giving my opinion and my view!..
> I certainly was not looking to be confrontational with anyone nor did I deserve an attack from someone who didn’t even give any opinions or views on the topic being discussed.
> I didn’t say I was totally against the scheme, my complaint about it is that companies are abusing it to get free labour and I as a TAX PAYER (not someone like you on Jobseekers since 2008, from reading your previous post dated 23-10-2008
> 
> ...


    A+, HaHaHa, Well said dmb, very nicely put. I don’t think you should be apologising to him for his senseless attack!.. If he feels it’s a great scheme get of his This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language and " Clock in " and do some of this free work, he seems to see it as a great scheme for everyone else but not him.

I don’t agree with the scheme either, I find it works in favour of the employer at the Tax payer expense and the slave, worthless labour of the jobseeker who gets recycled after 9 months..

I can’t understand how anyone could be on Jobseekers for 2 years though!.. Is there no limit for how long you can claim it? Or is there not an official who checks that genuine attempts are being made to seek employment? I understand there is more competition out there for Jobs ect but 2 years with nothing???

His Inteligence,"articulation, grammar, spelling and powers of expression" is obviously not of much use to him when he is without work but oddly enough decides to "nit pick" at a Tax Payer who has helped fund him on JA for the last 2 years!..


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2010)

Speaking as an employer I have strong reservations about the scheme. If there are people who need experience in a particular area there should be a mechanism where they can gain it but only where there is a high level of in-house training by the employer and that training can lead to a marketable skill. It should be remembered many jobs require that high level of in-house training and there is a very real cost to the employer to provide it. For those who think that the state should not subsidise the employer for providing that training do remember that the state does exactly the same thing when it pays for people to go to college to study job specific courses (medicine, law, engineering, nursing etc).

That said there is no way the scheme should be used to provide businesses with free labour for jobs where there is no training cost burden on the employer.

The only problem with the above is that it will probably require an army of civil servants to administer and police.


----------



## Stronge (12 Sep 2010)

I recently saw where the Dept. of Justice were looking for 15 qualified solicitors to work in the department under the scheme! Perhaps if you were living at home being supported by family you could apply but not if you had to rent accommodation in Dublin  and feed yourself out of your €194 per week JSA!


----------



## Marietta (12 Sep 2010)

Stronge said:


> I recently saw where the Dept. of Justice were looking for 15 qualified solicitors to work in the department under the scheme!


 

Well I never, is the Department of Justice really in such dire straits??? Is there any hope for us.


----------



## thaiaddict (22 Sep 2010)

*re..taxpayers...and v.a.t*

Hi, just to throw my penny's worth in. Its well documented that v.a.t is a high proportion of the countrys tax intake.  We all regardless of wether employed or claiming social welfare pay v.a.t. We are all taxpayers to one extent or another, not just those in paid employment.


----------



## money man (25 Sep 2010)

Its a bit of a dilemma. people think that everyones labour is worth something but at the same time should people get something for nothing? i.e. the dole? the people who work under this scheme give  themselves a much better chance of gaining employment in an improving jobs market in the future than someone who just picked up their money and did nothing.


----------



## Complainer (25 Sep 2010)

money man said:


> Its a bit of a dilemma. people think that everyones labour is worth something but at the same time should people get something for nothing? i.e. the dole?


People don't get something for nothing. Even a Dutch Gold drinking/Johnny Blue smoking skiver pays tax (VAT). Social welfare payments for many people are based on past insurance contributions.


----------



## money man (30 Sep 2010)

Not if he buys his ciggies and dutch gold in newry. the dole he receives will be for nothing in return once his allowance is used up which is quite quickly. and the contributions paid are for far more than dole (Illness/pension) etc. its a little simplistic to say that the state pensions and dole (20 billion plus) could be paid using vat receipts.


----------



## Complainer (30 Sep 2010)

money man said:


> its a little simplistic to say that the state pensions and dole (20 billion plus) could be paid using vat receipts.


That's not what I said. Perhaps you'd like to argue against the points I actually made, instead of the ones you just made up.


----------

