Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
If the Job Centre forces people to work then they should be paid minimum wage.
Unemployed bussed in to steward jubilee, unpaid and asked to sleep rough
- Thread starter Pav89
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
And yet, in another thread I made this exact point in relation to the question of why communism could never work and you disagreed then
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Personal insults are frowned upon here so I'll have to resort to a
I meant if they get £71 a week JSA then they should be only be expected to do 11.5hrs a week work for that £71 (i.e. £6.08 x 11.5hrs = £71) - not that they should be paid thier JSA AND 11.5hrs @ min wage! I don't know why you'd think I meant it any other way.
But even "earning" thier JSA leaves me a bit uncomfortable (see last para).
I remember the social programs when all the northern mills started to close or were mechanised - those ex-employees were employed on reasonable rates to build roads, parks, improve public buildings etc. This provided the redundant employees with the means to support themselves AND provided a benefit to the local communites those workers resided in. It was NOT slave labour and I don't know why we aren't doing it now, with the likes of the HS2 rail scheme, schools requiring modernisation etc.
I've no problem with saying to an unemployed person "here, take this street sweeper job @ £6 an hour. If you refuse and remain unemployed your benefits will cease". What I don't agree with is the viewpoint of "you need to earn your £71 a week" - people forget that most of those on JSA AREN'T long term unemployed are are in fact ex-employees that have made many years of NI contributions and have already paid for the cushion that JSA provides when they are between jobs.
Last edited by a moderator:
In a system of true communism, you wouldn't need money to survive (as money wouldn't exist).And yet, in another thread I made this exact point in relation to the question of why communism could never work and you disagreed then
In our current system we live in, money is required (to purchase food/shelter) - we live in a "carrot/stick->reward" style system - not paying somebody for labour goes against the very nature of capitalism.
I can't believe I needed to explain that.
Human behaviour is based around what a society rewards, in capitalism money is a reward for work (which in turn is spent) - in a society without money the argument has no base in reality.
It's difficult to imagine, but our minds have changed in the last few hundred years - how our pathways are formed & the make-up of our brains changes to suit the society in which we live.
As we changed from hunter/gatherer society to an agrarian society our minds change to suit the environment - a combination of genetics, epigenetic's & environmental stimulus - this process does not stop.
(if you are unfamiliar with epigenetic's - a bit of info from Wiki on the subject pertinent to the point made)
Epigenetic features may play a role in short-term adaptation of species by allowing for reversible phenotype variability.
The modification of epigenetic features associated with a region of DNA allows organisms, on a multigenerational time scale, to switch between phenotypes that express and repress that particular gene.
When the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible. It has also been speculated that organisms may take advantage of differential mutation rates associated with epigenetic features to control the mutation rates of particular genes.
Interestingly, recent analysis have suggested that members of the APOBEC/AID family of cytosine deaminases are capable of simultaneously mediating genetic and epigenetic inheritance using similar molecular mechanisms.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
Completely agree.Personal insults are frowned upon here so I'll have to resort to a
I meant if they get £71 a week JSA then they should be only be expected to do 11.5hrs a week work for that £71 (i.e. £6.08 x 11.5hrs = £71) - not that they should be paid thier JSA AND 11.5hrs @ min wage!
I don't know why you'd think I meant it any other way.
With Work Programme people are expected to do a MINIMUM 30 hours a week for their benefits.
I don't think many people would complain if they only did 11/12 hours, if I was on benefits and was pushed 'voluntarily' into work I wouldn't have any qualms with working the requisite hours to cover my benefits.
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
The incentive should be not starving.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,230
- Location
- North East England
If people want to earn a living they would get a job. Been on benefits should never give people a higher standard of living than someone who works. In this country that is sadly not true and we desperately need to see a change.
As I said this scheme is probably affecting the wrong people, due to the jobcentres been so poorly run, but at least its an improvement on 'sign here, there's you money' mentality of the past.
One other point. I have both briefly claimed benefits in the past, and worked in a jobcentre so have seen either side of the desk. Working in a jobcentre was by far the worst job I have ever had, BUT, I got on with it as I had no wish to be back on the other side. If many of the unemployed had the same attitude we would not need measures such as voluntary work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,230
- Location
- North East England
Personal insults are frowned upon here so I'll have to resort to a
Well I will hold my hands up and say sorry for that as that was how I read it, hence the response
And yes your idea of earning JSA by working 11 or so hours, while retaining other benefits to prevent them from falling into poverty would be a viable option, though it would require a a restructuring of the system (they don't like doing that I had a fair few arguments when I worked for a jobcentre)
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
But that's not what you said, you said it went against 'human behaviour'. The way I read the sentence I quoted before was that humans need to receive some kind of recognition for doing work, and communism doesn't provide that.
If that's not what you meant then fair enough.
Firstly, I see this as an argument to increase the minimum wage.
I've attempted to push changes in my place of work to increase the pay of my fellow workers on significantly less - as I totally agree, nobody should be living on the breadline who is working full-time.
Making low-end work more worthwhile would help reduce the amount of people disenfranchised with the system.
Decreasing the tax burden on the bottom 80% of earners would also increase demand/spending to cover the additional cost - it's not a problem which can be solved in isolation.
If you actually read what I said (as you have claimed), you would recall I said that the reward would be different - not that it didn't exist - but that's a different topic anyway.
Surely as somebody who is pro-meritocracy, not paying somebody for work done isn't right? - as that's not rewarding contribution done (in comparison to others who do the same job)?.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
Agree but its easier said than done which is why I get annoyed when you get threads like these with a bunch of kids probably still living with or getting help from momma and pappa...
A factory where 5-6 of my family worked got bought out for the land and EVERYONE got laid off, over 400 people, all in a smallish town with 1 job centre. Some of them struggled to find a job in years, some still don't have a job.
Its not as black and white as some idiots think. (not aiming at you)
A factory where 5-6 of my family worked got bought out for the land and EVERYONE got laid off, over 400 people, all in a smallish town with 1 job centre. Some of them struggled to find a job in years, some still don't have a job.
Its not as black and white as some idiots think. (not aiming at you)
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I hate how most posters don't distinguish between the three different types of unemplyed:-
1: The unemplyed seeking work.
2: The unemployable (through lack of skills but willing to work or disability).
3: The unwilling to work.
They are three different groups and require three different solutions:-
1: The largest group - deserve all our sympathy and help in aiding them back into work.
2: Deserve our support for those that cannot work through disbility and for those that are unemplyable through lack of skills we should be bending over backwards to provide them oppurtunities for delevopment.
3: The smallest group. This group needs to have a targeted and robust strategy to place them into the productive workforce but it should never unfairly affect the previous two groups.
1: The unemplyed seeking work.
2: The unemployable (through lack of skills but willing to work or disability).
3: The unwilling to work.
They are three different groups and require three different solutions:-
1: The largest group - deserve all our sympathy and help in aiding them back into work.
2: Deserve our support for those that cannot work through disbility and for those that are unemplyable through lack of skills we should be bending over backwards to provide them oppurtunities for delevopment.
3: The smallest group. This group needs to have a targeted and robust strategy to place them into the productive workforce but it should never unfairly affect the previous two groups.
errr no one in this country is unemployable through "lack of skills" short of never having learned to walk or talk there is something you can do.
plus you're missing the absolutely massive cross over of groups 1&2 and 3 there are lots of people "willing to work" but not willing to do the work that's on offer because it's "beneath" them even if they are unskilled and pretty much just suited for menial work
.
plus you're missing the absolutely massive cross over of groups 1&2 and 3 there are lots of people "willing to work" but not willing to do the work that's on offer because it's "beneath" them even if they are unskilled and pretty much just suited for menial work
.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Sigh, but that's the point isn't it - if they were paid min wage by the employer then they wouldn't be on benefits would they
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
The're are plenty of people unemplyable through lack of skills.
1% (or 600k) are functionally illterate (17% for 16-19 yr olds), 3% functionally innumerate (22% for 16 to 19 year olds), 6% have social integration issues - these all amount to making someone "unemployable" - these aren't issues as a result of a disability - they are all issues as a result of lack of training - training that should then be provided through remidial action whilst looking for work.
I agree with you (see my previous post) where I said a refusal of a job, as long as it's appropriate (i.e. I wouldn't expect a Jewish person to accept a job in a butchers), would result in suspension of benefits. After all, accepting a menial job doesn't prevent them looking for another one does it? But then we have the oppsite side of the coin - the "over qualified" issue that prevents some people even being accepted for menial jobs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Depends on location.
If you have no skills & live in a small community, the chance of getting a job (IE, being better than another candidate) are small.
The problem is that as we have more jobs than people, those who have the lowest skills/worth interview manner get rejected for every job.
Person A joins the job-centre in Jan - apply's for 5 jobs a day for six months.
The people getting those jobs on average spent about a month each signed up with the job-centre - each one leaping ahead of the person A (as they have more skills).
The problem isn't even solved by training all unemployed people - as even if 100% of the people in the job centre had a desirable skill-set, genuinely wanted a job, applied for 50 jobs a day - we would still have people on the dole.
We have more people than jobs, until this is addressed these back to work schemes are a waste of time.
To address this we need to increase demand, to increase demand we need to reduce the tax burden on the middle/lower classes to increase spending.
Nothing else will create jobs - demands creates jobs, until the demand exists people will not hire (unless we want more mickey mouse jobs to be made up from the government, I don't).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,539
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I think this is all pretty much spot on. I have had plenty of contact with people who some would view as the lowest in society down here in Brighton. I know lots of people who are unemployed and hardly any of them are where they are by choice. A friend of mine is a Barrister and does a lot of pro bono advocacy work for the unemployed. The treatment some of these people receive is nothing short of appalling.
I know people who have been made redundant and can't find work. They have even applied for the jobs people don't want to do. Unfortunately many employers who employ cleaners and other menial jobs won't hire British people. They will only hire eastern Europeans who they can treat like dirt.
Last edited:
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
Maybe it's just me, but being told to sleep under London Bridge at 2am, then working a 14 hour shift in the rain for no money doesn't sound like much of an incentive to me. It's hardly extolling the virtues of hard work if you expect people to be defecated on like that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I'm not sure why you keep overlooking these points:
- They volunteered for it
- The volunteering opened the door to positions in the olympics
- They just had to wait around a bit due to a logistical blip
- It's not the end of the world
People work under much worse conditions at festivals, which they do sometimes purely for free tickets (under the guide of 'charity work').
Last edited: