"Worth £250?" So they can sell it can they?
Why have Close Protection UK apologised if they've done nothing wrong?
Unemployed bussed in to steward jubilee, unpaid and asked to sleep rough
- Thread starter Pav89
- Start date
"Worth £250?" So they can sell it can they?
Why have Close Protection UK apologised if they've done nothing wrong?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I love how seamlessly scorza can skip over his wrongness and unfounded mouth-frothing onto something else he wants to make a scandal.
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,230
- Location
- North East England
They are NOT working for nothing, they are been made to work for their JSA and if you had any previous experience of dealing with the long term unemployed you would now why such schemes have been introduced.
The idea of the scheme is fine but the implementation is the usual jobecentre half arsed mess. It should be restricted to the long term unemployed (1 year plus) these are often the ones who are simply not looking for work as its too easy a lifestyle been on benefits. Or they are the ones who are already working and whom ultimately have higher than average incomes when combines with benefits.
The problem with life is, there are winners, and losers. I personally think it is shady not to at least pay them 50 quid for doing it. Others will feel they are lazy workshy twits who don't deserve a penny. Which point of view is more humane? Probably the one that says give 'em 50 quid.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If you are being MADE to work then it should be for at least the min wage but the trouble is JSA @ £71 per week would only provide for 11.5hrs work per week @ £6.08 per hour min wage.
Or are you saying we should make JSA claimants work for less than the min wage? If so, then we should just get rid of all the street cleaners, toilet cleaners, admin staff etc who are currently employed on min wage and give all those jobs to JSA claimaints.
Pay the minimum wage, are you mad? Your common sense approach has no place in this thread.
Be off with you
Well if they don't like it........
Only read the first page of this thread, so apologies if this has since clarified the situation further, but...
It sounds to me like the 'workers' knew what to expect (to a degree), indeed the first article in the OP states "He said that it was impossible to pitch a tent because of the concrete floor." - sounds to me that they were told before hand to bring camping equipment with them or had it provided; there's even talk of going to another camp site later the next day.
It seems that the news have simply cherry picked and sensationalized comments for effect, though it still highlights a pretty dubious situation - the fact that the security firm likely charged a per head cost for supplying the staff (probably covering their kit, transport, food and living expenses) and pocketed whatever they didn't have to spend out on.
Going back to read the other pages now
It sounds to me like the 'workers' knew what to expect (to a degree), indeed the first article in the OP states "He said that it was impossible to pitch a tent because of the concrete floor." - sounds to me that they were told before hand to bring camping equipment with them or had it provided; there's even talk of going to another camp site later the next day.
It seems that the news have simply cherry picked and sensationalized comments for effect, though it still highlights a pretty dubious situation - the fact that the security firm likely charged a per head cost for supplying the staff (probably covering their kit, transport, food and living expenses) and pocketed whatever they didn't have to spend out on.
Going back to read the other pages now
The new news storys, sum it up, they weren't told to sleep under the bridge. Basically bussed in and had a few hours to kill, they could sleep if they wanted to. They went to proper camp site for the proper night.
Basically blown out of proportion, but you could tell that by the news article. Oh Muddy campsite. So what does that prove.
Basically the only issue, was when they got off the bus, they weren't met for a few hours.
Basically blown out of proportion, but you could tell that by the news article. Oh Muddy campsite. So what does that prove.
Basically the only issue, was when they got off the bus, they weren't met for a few hours.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
minor logistical blipTHE TORY RICH TRAMPLING ON THE POOR
And there I was thinking Jobcentres were there to help people find jobs. Actual jobs which adhere to minimum wage laws.
edit:
I have no problem with non-mandatory volunteering though (for non-profit organisations).
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
Hahahahahaha.......good one!
We need more boots on the ground.
They should be, but some people just don't won't jobs, or think they are better than jobs they can get. As such those people need extra incentive.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
The problem is the Job Centre doesn't differentiate. There is no one size fits all solution.
Isn't providing free labour to certain private companies giving them an unfair competitive advantage?, not very true to capitalism to be honest.
I could at least understand the theory behind if it they did two key things,
1. Paid them the national minimum wage for work done.
2. Got them to do work in the community/charity work which didn't benefit any private business disproportionately over another.
As much as I disagree with the idea in principle it would be worth at least considering if the above conditions were first met.
Not paying somebody for the work they do goes against every single study into human behaviour.
If we want to get "lazy" people to stop claiming benefits & getting back into work, would it not make more sense to pay these people for the work they do (with the intention of giving them a taste of the rewards associated with a hard days work).
Making them work, without paying them - isn't going to make people who are already demotivated suddenly want to rejoin the workforce, if anything it's going to make the situation worse.
That's ignoring the problems already laid out in this thread,
1. Uncompetitive business advantage.
2. It reduces the amount of jobs on the market, causing more employment.
3. It undermines the national minimum wage.
4. It's borderline exploitation (not specifically this scheme - the concept of forcing people who may be trying to get a job - just unable) into working for free.
We have more people than jobs, this is a known fact - until we have more jobs than people we can't label all job-seekers as lazy.
It's factually incorrect.
I could at least understand the theory behind if it they did two key things,
1. Paid them the national minimum wage for work done.
2. Got them to do work in the community/charity work which didn't benefit any private business disproportionately over another.
As much as I disagree with the idea in principle it would be worth at least considering if the above conditions were first met.
Not paying somebody for the work they do goes against every single study into human behaviour.
If we want to get "lazy" people to stop claiming benefits & getting back into work, would it not make more sense to pay these people for the work they do (with the intention of giving them a taste of the rewards associated with a hard days work).
Making them work, without paying them - isn't going to make people who are already demotivated suddenly want to rejoin the workforce, if anything it's going to make the situation worse.
That's ignoring the problems already laid out in this thread,
1. Uncompetitive business advantage.
2. It reduces the amount of jobs on the market, causing more employment.
3. It undermines the national minimum wage.
4. It's borderline exploitation (not specifically this scheme - the concept of forcing people who may be trying to get a job - just unable) into working for free.
We have more people than jobs, this is a known fact - until we have more jobs than people we can't label all job-seekers as lazy.
It's factually incorrect.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,230
- Location
- North East England
Oh please you think people should be able to legally claim benefit and work earning a wage ! I'm honestly lost for words, you do realise the government spends hundreds of thousands employing people to stop just that? Its called the fraud department.
Your example makes no sense?
There are hundreds of thousands of long term unemployed in this country who have no intention of working, or who already work and claim benefits that need to be shown that it is not an easy option.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Neither of those two roles are minimum wage jobs.