Unemployed yoof to pick up litter in return for benefits...

lemonade said:
Most of those jobs are non-existent, you go to sites like reed, jobsite etc, half the jobs dont exist, you apply and all you get is a bombardment of spam from recruitment agencies.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking websites. However what you are saying is correct. Agencies just wanting to get people through the door.

My company has 4 jobs going. Another when I leave soon.

I'm not saying it's easy, but that's what helps separates the grafters. Again I'm focusing on long term unemployed...
 
balky12 said:
Maybe it doesn't directly correlate into these areas but it was no secret that Labour created jobs in the public sector to help unemployment rates. Middle management was a big issue in the NHS at one point.
Click to expand...

:confused:
Isn't the NHS is still massively bloated with non-clinical staff - penpushers that don't really do anything, useless managers and senior managers that don't get fired regardless of incompetence?
 
PanMaster said:
:confused:
Isn't the NHS is still massively bloated with non-clinical staff - penpushers that don't really do anything, useless managers and senior managers that don't get fired regardless of incompetence?
Click to expand...

Well it still is then.. Not really the point I was making... I was focusing on fact Labour put them there, created these 'jobs'.

As you pointed out it's near impossible to get rid of them and people at bottom go first.
 
There is something very wrong if these yoofs are being made to do litter picking (or any other service), such that they effectively get their JSA at less than minimum wage i.e More than ~11 hours per week (yoofs get ~£55 per week?).

Why limit it to just yoofs?

But on the flip side, is this yoof boot camp going to doing other people out of jobs and artificially saving money for local councils?
 
balky12 said:
Maybe it doesn't directly correlate into these areas but it was no secret that Labour created jobs in the public sector to help unemployment rates. Middle management was a big issue in the NHS at one point.
Click to expand...

Labour's main strategy was the move public sector and government funded jobs away from London. This had two benefits - it creates jobs in areas of high unemployment and it reduces costs.

In terms of tackling youth employment, Labour's main strategy was to keep young people in education and training longer. They increased university places and 'bribed' 16-18 year olds with EMA. It was a largely successful strategy.
 
nuttyprot said:
Why not hire the people to do the job? If a person is say doing 30+ hours a week picking litter up should they not be paid minimum wage for it? to me just seems like a way to get cheap labor and sadly see it getting abused
Click to expand...

That's a good point, if there is a job to be done then hire people.

If they are refusing the apply for jobs then the benefits should be stopped after 6 months, I thought that was the whole point in the checkups they did every 1-2 weeks.

I don't like the idea of slave labour which is essentially what this is, as many of them are looking for work.
 
Last edited:
Tunney said:
In terms of tackling youth employment, Labour's main strategy was to keep young people in education and training longer. They increased university places and 'bribed' 16-18 year olds with EMA. It was a largely successful strategy.
Click to expand...

Now they want to undo it. Bring back apprenticeships they axed. Realising now that we have far too many degree educated students and not the jobs.

IMO school should be until 16.
Further education if you wish till 18. If not work or apprenticeships.
Then at 18 university for the best and brightest, studying proper degrees.
If uni isn't for you again apprenticeships or work.

The amount of times I was told at college I would amount to nothing without a degree was staggering...
 
Tunney said:
Labour's main strategy was the move public sector and government funded jobs away from London. This had two benefits - it creates jobs in areas of high unemployment and it reduces costs.

In terms of tackling youth employment, Labour's main strategy was to keep young people in education and training longer. They increased university places and 'bribed' 16-18 year olds with EMA. It was a largely successful strategy.
Click to expand...
16-18 year old unemployment fell, sure, but what happened to 18+ unemployment?

Graduates were walking the streets with sandwich boards saying "I'll even work for free!" on it.
 
Freakbro said:
Is that the governments fault though? (genuine question)
Click to expand...

Not solely but they had a part in it. Pushing more people into universities and college was not as straight cut an answer as they made out it would be which had resulted in many disillusioned graduates. Of which there were plenty to start with.
 
Freakbro said:
Is that the governments fault though? (genuine question)
Click to expand...

To graduates walking the streets? One argument could be that government wanted 50% of students educated to degree level. Why? There was no need? Not enough jobs demanded this level of education.

This in turn created quite a few people in a generation of graduates who were coming out of universities that were not viewed as universities, with degrees that were not worth the paper they were written on.

These graduates were then looking at the generation previous, who were the best and brightest, and looking at their earning potential and thinking that would be them. So upon graduating expecting to walk into a job and be on £40k+ starting salaries. When this wasn't the case their arguments were 'but I have a degree'. College and universities were also partly to blame for blowing smoke up these people arses.

I saw it amongst my group of friends. Their expectations because they have a piece of paper with the word degree on it were outrageous. One of my mates went Durham and studied economics and business. He is worth his weight in gold and doing very well and can command such a wage. My other friends who did degrees ranging from IT to sociology to tourism had a massive shock entering the job market.
 
ebilcake said:
If they are refusing the apply for jobs then the benefits should be stopped after 6 months, I thought that was the whole point in the checkups they did every 1-2 weeks.
Click to expand...

You have to show you have down 3 things each week to look for work, makes sense in theory. Except you can literally just say some thing like the following:

I asked family about any available jobs
Looked in the newspaper
Checked online

Don't have to provide any proof, don't actually have to apply for any jobs. The staff just want to tick a box and get you out.
 
cheesyboy said:
You don't know what you're talking about when you suggest unemployed people should "get a filler job then". Angilion correctly pointed out that these "filler jobs" are massively oversubscribed and you can't simply "get" one.
Click to expand...

this is defiinatley true a friend applied for a minimum wage job packing stuff he actually got a interview , the guy interviewing him said the ad had been left up for 2 months , as they where busy moving premises. total number of applicants 1200.

contrast in 2004 i was out of work , went to the job center saw a laboring job 7 quid a hour , not bad i thought it will do for now . got the guys phone number called him up had a 1 min phone interview he just said have you worked on this job before some people had started and jacked it in , right see you at 7.30 sharp the next morning he said did it for 3 months till i got something better.

that does not happen anymore. its all done by cv even for the most basic jobs.
 
Last edited:
Dj_Jestar said:
16-18 year old unemployment fell, sure, but what happened to 18+ unemployment?
Click to expand...

Unemployment in this country started falling in country around 1993 from a peak of around 3 million unemployed. It bottomed out at about 1.5 million in 2001 and levelled out until the global financial crisis.

balky12 said:
To graduates walking the streets? One argument could be that government wanted 50% of students educated to degree level. Why? There was no need? Not enough jobs demanded this level of education.
Click to expand...

There’s a casual link between number of people with higher education qualifications and GDP - both in this country and abroad.

Even in jobs that don't demand a degree, graduates still have useful skills.
 
Tunney said:
There’s a casual link between number of people with higher education qualifications and GDP - both in this country and abroad.

Even in jobs that don't demand a degree, graduates still have useful skills.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't doubt. Having the population educated to a higher standard can only be better in the grand scheme of things.

But it can bring problems in the smaller aspects of day to day life.

I doubt a graduate who went to a meh Uni to study something like Sociology, (all the time being told that they will walk into a £40k plus job), will find much comfort in you telling them that despite their efforts and promises they will most likey struggle to find work and then start on around £15k, but the countries GDP will benefit ever so slightly.
 
Repta said:
You have to show you have down 3 things each week to look for work, makes sense in theory. Except you can literally just say some thing like the following:

I asked family about any available jobs
Looked in the newspaper
Checked online

Don't have to provide any proof, don't actually have to apply for any jobs. The staff just want to tick a box and get you out.
Click to expand...

Well it's more important they change this than anything else, if they have been unemployed for 6 months they must be able to provide letters, emails or even company details, names of people they spoken too and even contact numbers.

That's far to easy to abuse if they can just make up a story every 1/2 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom