So Slavery
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
15 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
4389 readers
104 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There is nothing wrong with asking people to support themselves, as long as it fits the NMW requirements. The same should apply to some benefits (like unemployment benefit).
Except it is not NMW never has been when gov order work for benifits. And here it is for free.
So your comment has no real points at all.
Hell if any gov pushed local authorities to pay NMW to benefit claiments in exchange for work for the community/infastructure. No one would complain. Except maybe the companies currently charging way more. And I'm pretty sure they would have media objecting all over the place.
But at every point it has been a way for companies to gain free labour from well below NMW gov paid benefits.
Except it is not NMW never has been when gov order work for benifits. And here it is for free
How is it for free if it pays for accommodation, food, clothing?
Assuming these things cost £800 per month and they are only asked to work enough hours for charity to cover these £800, at whatever wage per hour this charity usually pays, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
And in exchange for well below NMW benifit costs by the government.
Comapanies get free labour and fire jobs they paid for. Both evidenced multiple times.
So yes, it is free welfare for the corporations. Not individuals that need it. And as it clearly leads to unemployment for employees of those industries. ~It is clearly a move from vol;entry employment to outright slave labour.
And in exchange for well below NMW benifit costs by the government.
Can you actually read?
How is it for free if it pays for accommodation, food, clothing?
It doesn't pay for anything. No-one is paying them.
they are only asked to work enough hours for charity to cover these £800, at whatever wage per hour this charity usually pays
It's voluntary roles in a charity. They usually pay a wage of £0.
It doesn't pay for anything. No-one is paying them.
It does pay. It is adding value worth of £x and £x should be roughly equal to the cost of essentials.
It's voluntary roles in a charity. They usually pay a wage of £0.
Charities have both voluntary and paid roles.
Charities have both voluntary and paid roles.
Right, but the entire premise of the discussion is that these are voluntary roles. That's what the article is about.
Not really in the context. It is about people working out the costs of their own maintenance. And there is nothing wrong with that.