Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
Not everyone can get a ****** job at McDonalds. You act like I can just walk into a McDs job tomorrow.
Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling
- Thread starter CosmicClown
- Start date
I remember when I was unemployed, I went to sign on, and then went to McDonalds. I started work the next day and subsequently cancelled my benefit claim.
Admittedly this was a few years ago, but I can't remember seeing a McDonalds/KFC/etc. which isn't hiring in the last few years.
Anyway, regardless the point still stands; they are not being forced. They are being offered a hand out with more of a proviso than 'apply for a couple of jobs a year' or whatever the largely unenforced but nonetheless laughable requirement was, or nothing at all.
I don't think it's unreasonable that they're asked to do something for this handout, although I do think it's unreasonable it is to benefit large corporations and not society as a whole. Just think how litter free our streets could be with a little imagination from the DWP...
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
What a surprise, you walked into a job so ergo everyone should be able to. I've applied about 10 times over the past few months to my 'local' McDs and I've been knocked back every time.
In principle I agree, but where this argument falls down is when people start having to work full time hours for JSA AND have to search for and apply to 5 jobs a day.
Is that in addition to the other 4-5 jobs a week you apply for?
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to do something that may help them get back into work or gain experience or even just get into the routine of getting up and turning out.
That said. I don't think it is acceptable to ask someone to do 30 hours a week for £70ish. That's not presenting people with opportunities that's taking the Micheal, and exploiting them.
Also at present, the system sticks criminals doing community service on the streets-litter picking as a punishment. Are people to be punished for being out of work??
Last edited:
Not really it is asking them to do a few weeks work for the 52 x £70ish they would get in a year.
Thing is it is not necessarily a few weeks work, it can be up to 6 months. (which where I think it is wrong) I think anyone, so long as the don't drool and play a banjo is worth £6 an hour.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
But jsa is paid to help people while looking for work, not for working. Thought about this and I find it quite bizarre that people are prepared to pay the wages for large multi companys while the unpaid worker recieves only benefit for his effort, then isn't it only fair to say that once they start working for that benefit that it is no longer benefit but now earned money but still face harrasment from the DWP.
Look at it this way, if your local corner shop keeper came knocking on your door with a stranger and explaind he wants to employ him in his shop and aks you if you would pay him his wages what would you say then? i'll have a guess, you'd tell him where to get off. Do you see how bizarre it is? yet there are those people who still think it's a good idea. I find it rather strange and am convinced it is intended as a punishment for simply being unemployed.
Last edited:
McD's here has dozens and dozens of people on 0 hour contracts, don't think they really turn anyone away currently but you'd be lucky to get 5 hours of work in a week. KFC here has just opened so its a bit of a different story there but they are all done with recruitment for now. There isn't actually a shortage of jobs as such here - tho lower skilled openings are relatively scarce - infact a ton of supervisor through to middle management type positions - but actually getting a job is another matter with the number of people out of work to compete with.
I don't think it unreasonable to expect someone to do something for their benefits but another matter when they are doing a significant number of hours under threat real or not of the loss of their benefits - its a long way down the road towards slavery and I definitely don't want it to be a feature of the society I live in.
It's asking someone to work for well below a living wage, and it means companies then don't have to pay anyone.
Why are big fat cat business's being rewarded for exploiting people who they don't want to have to pay for, at the cost of not offering someone an actual job.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
14 over the past week before you get all smartarse, there aren't always that many jobs I can apply for, for example the past week on Universal Jobsmatch (I do look elsewhere before you start) there has been a grand total of 10 jobs, most of which I don't have experience for, and again before you jump to conclusions and judge me there aren't many public transport links in this town, the buses don't start till near 8am ruling out a lot of factory jobs. Nearest town is a 4 hour walk.
Looking for a job isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, especially in this climate.
Last edited:
Indeed, some people need to check their privilege, whilst for them it might be dead easy to get a job, like myself living in a busy city centre and with a car, for others, their situations are just not like that.
Having notices up and actually hiring aren't the same thing. Places that are particularly awful to work for often just leave the hiring notices up all the time regardless of whether or not anyone has managed to escape working there at the time, leaving a vacancy.
Times have changed. There are fewer bottom-end jobs today because many of them have been sent abroad or have been made obsolete by technology. There's more competition for each of the fewer jobs, too. You can expect to go through two or even three interviews for a minimum wage flunkey job today, assuming you get as far as the interview stage.
There are far fewer reliable jobs at the bottom end. Until recently, the norm was contracted hours. A modern peasant would be contracted to work for as little money as possible, but they'd be contracted to work x hours per week, doing fixed hours on fixed days. It was reliable work with a reliable income and known days of freedom that you could have a life in, even plan in advance. That's fast disappearing. It's increasingly common to simply require the peasants to work on demand because that's more convenient for the employer. Utterly uncaring employers will use zero-hour contracts, so their peasants don't even know if they can earn enough money to survive from week to week.
It has become much worse at the bottom end over the last few years. When times are hard, the peasants get shafted.
True around here, I know quite a few people whose contracted hours have been slashed "because of the economy" who are currently ok because theres work there for them to do their old hours but if the employer wanted to they'd be cut back to minimum hours and barely able to live, pretty miseable situation to be in really.
TBH tho the problem atm isn't so much the availability of jobs tho its not amazing, but the contractions in the economy lately have put a lot more people out there looking for work, while it might ease up in the future its not so great at the moment in many areas especially in non-specialist fields.
Last edited:
Yes, and we are not mates.
Meaningless blather.
You choose to consider everyone to be defined by their sex, sexual orientation and what you see as their race. You choose to judge everyone on the basis of the prejudices and stereotypes that you choose to attach to the groupings that you choose to consider as defining people.
It is your choice to do those things. You are not forced to do it.
I'd rather have honest bigots because they do less harm to egalitarian ideals. They openly oppose those ideals. People like you corrupt them.
It's not as forceful as slavery, nor is it much like slavery. Go look up what slavery is.
It's abusive. It's monumentally unbalanced. It's a fuedal level of imbalance. It's arguably indentured servitude. But it's not slavery.