I've just had a really rather good idea, re benefits.

Are they employable people

Interesting idea.

Dec 5, 2014 -- 8:14AM, Money Tree cost me thousands!! wrote:

Are they employable people

Some of them must be. If not, all this moaning about the benefits system is misplaced and what is everyone complaining about?

If small business flourishes, then the country tends to flourish too. If Big business has to pay its way and not gain from the state then the country gains revenue from this as well.

I'd agree with anything that gets rid of parasitic employment agencies.

Many employment agencies make a lot of money, often by less than honest means.
I have had experience of this.
They (at no expense) use the job centres to advertise jobs/wages which don't exist then cherry-pick the best candidates who are then offered jobs at about half the wage they (the agency) receive from the company employing the person.
A few years ago I managed to get a job in a call centre. It paid minimum wage (then £5.35 ph) I later discovered the agents were getting nearly £11 ph for my services.
They are not needed, and smaller businesses can freely and easily advertise positions on the Job Centre website.

So as an ex jsa claimant you are not seeing it from a balanced perspective.

There must be a percentage of people that have no possible use to anyone.

there's always lab experiments they can do

Money Tree

What point are you making?

If there are, as you argue, a percentage of people of no possible use to anyone what do you do with them?

Once you accept that someone is a lost cause then surely it is your duty as a people to take care of them?

Where is what I'm saying unbalanced?
I'm not suggesting it as a solution for ALL unemployed people, ffs. There are millions without work and fewer jobs than people, whatever the solution.

Perhaps we can just cull the useless ones, eh?

VG EO

Could you not grade the benefits on ability.

If the person is less liable to gain employment and be long term Claimer then the get less.

Not really.
There might be more suitable work for some than others.
Who grades ability? and how?

Reducing the money of some people arbitrarily would almost certainly have an adverse effect on crime.

Money

How expensive and intrusive would it be to grade people and would their desirability as employees not frequently move depending on changes in various factors which are affecting their employability in the first place?

If the person is less liable to gain employment and be long term Claimer then the get less.

This is the issue I'm questioning. Wouldn't a large number of these people who are less desirable employees have physical or mental disabilities which would mean they have greater needs and thus greater requirements for help and ultimately money?

Crime keeps people in work

No because they would be classed as disabled rather than just out of work.
Huge difference.

think they had a quaint word for this years ago ,slavery,
and it aint a new idea that bint off the apprentice michele duberry has been trying to get herself a free workforce by banging on about exactly the same idea for the last 3 years on sky news,
he,s an idea if all these people running buisness,s have job,s work that needs doing pay someone the going rate out of your own pocket,i,m sure duberry doesnt get up at 3 in the morning to review the papers for sky free of charge

How is it slavery?
Ridiculous.

150 a week plus rent paid for otherwise it wouldnt be worth it.

That's the question. How many will question the worth of going out to work with the associated costs for an extra £70-80 a week. Wouldn't travel expenses etc swallow that up?

the fact you have the option to not take a job when it's available is WRONG, I don't care if it's "not worth your while" , so you think it's fair everyone else is paying your bills???



employment agencies are scum

depends what the wage is.

whats the point of doing 40 hours a week plus 5-10 travelling and then after bills and essentials you have nothing or very little to show for?

i say fair play to those who dont fall for this waste of life trick.....

why make some c*** rich off the back of your hard work?

id say new businesses should give real incentives like a share fo the company of they stay on and the company does well.....

You make another person rich because you don't have the ability to go it alone

Sounds in theory like a good idea but perhaps not in reality. When I was in business I tried for a few years to give employment to people on government schemes feeling I was contributing a bit to society but very soon realised why a lot of these people are unemployed. One thing I could never understand initially was why when the job centre sent some of them in for the interview, they would turn up late, uninterested and looking as if they had just climbed out of a ditch.
Obviously the last thing they actually wanted was to be offered a job so you can imagine what use they would be if you gave some the benefit of the doubt and took them on.

OK - There are obvious tweaks which could be made. It isn't a 'catch-all'.
Maybe £2.50 or £3 an hour plus benefits or even more, maybe local small companies only.
Some smaller businesses can't afford more staff but need some.
I don't agree with unnecessary pressure to do the work for those who would be worse off, but there are enough people who would be able to fulfil such a scheme and enough small businesses which would benefit.
It certainly isn't slavery. The free workers big companies like poundland are getting (or else you don't get any benefits) is slavery.
It isn't designed to make anyone rich at the expense of cheap labour. By definition, any company with a turnover of less than £2 million a year is pretty unlikely to have Mr Big Bucks at the helm.

I agree with you bix, btw. Having had similar experiences. However, I believe there are still plenty of genuine candidates.

The slavery comment is still making me laugh.

Expecting someone to work for the money they get is just like being a slave.

G1  why should you get anything if you haven’t worked for it? Why do you feel you are you entitled to mooch off other people’s taxes??
This is exactly I why I always say handouts shouldn’t be available as a lifestyle choice, I can’t wait for the day when you’re forced to do some work for your jsa or do without. Anyone that actually works for a living would feel it’s perfectly fair that you do 11 hrs work , even if it’s scrubbing a pavement, for your standard jsa i.e. put in the hours at min wage rates.

The ones that aren’t disabled in some way but their skills and/or attitude mean they’re only good enough for sausage meat and ergo no good for a real business would be making the streets very clean if I had my way.

Anything so the useless fks get it through their worthless heads that money ain’t free.

So if studyform is out of work through no fault of his own and ends up claiming jsa, which as a former worker and taxpayer he is entitled to, would he be happy to be made to go out and work for £3 an hour or his jsa would be stopped?? I don`t think so. Real jobs for real wages, that`s what people want. Why not just get the unemployed to stand in their local park on one leg for 8 hours a day to get their benefits? I don`t deny that there are a lot of lazy people who just don`t want to work but why should genuine claimants be penalised because of them?

If some small businesses need more staff but can`t afford it, then they shouldn`t be in business.

There must be a lot of money wasted with the present system with admin. costs where those earning pay their contributions into the government which then distributes the benefits to the needy. Why not cut out the middle man and give us all the name of a claimant so we could take the cash round on a Friday night after being paid. Should save millions.

If you read it again you'll see I've never advocated anyone getting less than win wage rates i.e. if you get £72 then you do 11hrs work of whatever they tell or f off.

I don't agree with poundland or anyone else getting free labour, if they want them beyond the 11hrs worth of JSA then they should be paid normal rates after that.

I'm not being critical of the unemployed and ask this genuinely but how can people from all over the world with obvious initial difficulties, like language etc, putting them at a disadvantage come here and get work straight away yet many hundreds of thousands of people who supposedly want work can't find it?

Fair enough pawras, but I was referring to Study`s initial post, jsa + £1 an hour which equates to about £3 an hour for a 40 hour working week. Stupid idea. The government is not in the business of supplying cheap labour to private enterprises.

Probably EO because unemployed graduates and professional people won`t belittle themselves to work in menial jobs.

Why is it belittling yourself? A job is a job. You belittle yourself by looking down on the honest efforts of others. I have far more respect for someone who works to put food on the table scrubbing bogs than someone turning their nose up because they think they are too good for it.

trouble is a lot don't have the attitude and/or skills to even make it as shelf stacker in poundland , which is why the whole option of staying at home needs to be removed and instil some sadly lacking work ethic so that they are reprogrammed to understand that the only way they'll get any money is via some form of work and remove this "I'm ENTITLED to free money bullsh&t"

plenty of small businesses that were perfectly capable of paying minimum wage would use this to exploit desperate people to work for less . Don't assume just because they are small, they are moral

I agree EO but I think that it`s true.

Of course it's how some people think mighty. I don't think we should be paying for them to stay at home pondering why they are better than people who do work. Work can be a gateway to better things. Unemployment to worse.

Very true EO.

The first full time job I had many moons ago was for a small company, about 10 people, he was the tightest shyster I’ve ever met !! Because it was the main guy’s company it was very much every penny’s prisoner in the way he ran his business, which I don't blame him for in hindsight.

It was quite funny because what I did there was as complicated as some stuff I did years later for 8 times the money, but I learned a lot at least. Working for him set me on the path to working for myself by 25 because he didn’t know that I knew what he charged me out to to clients compared to what I was being paid.

But then I had to be willing to take a risk and set out on my own.

So you set up business and stole his clients

Well done pawras.

I set up to work for myself a few years and two more jobs after working for him, when I did it was in another part of the country. He ended up selling up in a takeover from a bigger firm and took the money and ran.

if the googles,starbucks,supermarkets out there are after people dont see why the government wouldnt use this idea with them rather than small buisness,s who may be gone tomorrow,as with all these ideas,we,re talking about the bottom layer of the workforce or are you on about people with skills and experience been touted around for jsa plus a couple of knicker, working for an outfit who cant afford to pay more than a couple of quid an hour doesnt sound like the start of the road to riches,figures already show that 75% of the recent rush to start up buisness,s is at the lower end of the range not making enough to pay taxes etc,gardeners,odd job man,window cleaners etc,2 grand start up to get them of the dole

"Give incentives (ie the jsa) to SMALL businesses (maybe those with less than £2 million turnover?) to employ those who are claiming. The businesses can then pay it, plus, say £2 per hour, in wages."

How long does it last for? And if not forever, you'll get some companies wanting rid when the scheme ends to get another unemployed person on the cheap.

Also, the very similar idea to the above of the govt topping up the pay of unemployed severely disabled people to get them into work was I believe part of what was being thought out loud a couple months back but the self righteous left immediately shut any discussion in that subject area down as discrimatory, as they always do, so the disabled will just remain unemployed. Which was helpful...

So, in that vein, any such scheme is "unemployed-ist" and insulting to the differently job-ed!

themightymac.

My suggestion is a small wage AS WELL AS the JSA they would be getting.
Which the govt could pay to either the company involved so as to make for a decent wage.
The govt is always banging on about helping small business, your statement that "If some small businesses need more staff but can`t afford it, then they shouldn`t be in business" is a bit naïve.

Father Maguire,
Yes, there will be some shady barstads who would exploits such a system, but this is something that happens no matter what system is adopted for anything.
I'd like to think there is a way to police it.

1st time poster, The bigger companies/corporations should pay they're tax - this alone would alleviate some of the pressure. They are already abusing the system by getting free labour among the unemployed and using 'interns'.

My idea is designed to help small business as well as some of the people who would like to work.
It would apply to unemployables or those who are unable to do just any job. As I said, it isn't a catch-all solution.
I don't think there is a great big solution to the welfare/job/disabled/benefits problem, but this is just one idea to possibly help with just a bit of it.

The welfare state should not be abandoned, nor should we see the return of workhouses by stealth.

*either was superfluous.

still struggling to find out what a buisnessmen thinks someone can add value to his buisness but at the same time only values that added value at 2 quid an hr,maybe he should relocate to bangledesh, thailand etc

What? It's extremely obvious why it would be attractive to any business, and especially borderline profitable ones or those who want to grow now but lack the capital/cashflow to do so.

FatherMaguire.
Studyform is right.
No matter what the system there will always be some who exploit it whether it is employers exploiting the workers or those who dont want to work exploiting the benefits system.

I quite like this idea.

It certainly has some things going for it not least of which is the rebalancing towards smaller businesses away from the huge multinationals which have disproportionately benefited from much of recet business legislation. It is also a helping hand for those people who do want to work but can't find it at the moment.

Anything which helps small businesses has got to be worthwhile. Trying to cope with all the red tape and acting as an unpaid tax collector for the government is a nightmare.

My suggestion is a small wage AS WELL AS the JSA they would be getting.

Read your opening statement where you say that the unemployed person would be paid an extra £2 per hour on top of their JSA, which equates to approximately £3.75p an hour. Would you work for that princely amount?


your statement that "If some small businesses need more staff but can`t afford it, then they shouldn`t be in business" is a bit naïve.

If one has a business that is so busy that it needs extra workers but is not making enough profit to pay these extra workers, then one doesn`t need to be Brain of Britain to conclude that the business is being badly run, therefore the people concerned shouldn`t be running a business but claiming JSA.

I never concluded the idea or made a definite figure, I didn't specify how many hours. It's only an idea.

Also - Many small businesses get no help from banks and are taxed to the hilt, and have operating costs which makes them borderline, yet with help they would have far more chance of being successful. There are 1000's of businesses which only survive because they're NOT badly run but cannot get funding assistance.

Possibly a stake-holding for potential employees after a qualifying period would sort that out.

would that stake holding be , before or after the government take their jsa back,stakeholders on 2 quid an hr,they,ll be on the board next and buying the boss out with a scratchcard win , ffs

pawras

id scrub the pavements for the going rate with the right equipment...ie. a pressure washer

also cheap labour takes away from the real workforce.

a better idea would be for the government to stimulate the economy and create more and better paid jobs instead of what it is doing now.


also cap rents....which in turn would lower housing benefits....that and tax credits for paye people are a massive drain .

picking on the jsa society and not even blinking an eyelid at the causes of the other 2 is just plain wrong when your talking in terms of taxpayers money.

the tax payer is subsidising buy to let C***s who have skewed the whole system

Agreed, GI Jockey - As I say, there are many problems which need solving.
Rent as a proportion of income is so much more than it ever was, but while so many of those who make the rules also own properties they rent out, it isn't likely to be capped any time soon.
Stimulating the economy could and should have been done 3 times at least when the billions were given to the banks (QE), if the money had been given to the people en masse instead, most of it would have been spent, I believe it's called the helicopter principle, but I may be wrong.

I'm not talking about picking on the JSA society, more just giving those who are able/qualified/and want to, to work, whilst also helping small businesses.

Ask any small businessman what the hindrances are to employing people.

My guess is they will say red tape, national insurance and difficulty in getting rid of rubbish staff.

First off.  Get rid of employers national insurance.  Who ever thought it was a good idea to tax people for employing people needs their heads examined.

Money Tree cost me thousands!!      
There must be a percentage of people that have no possible use to anyone.

There are over 12,000 in UK prisons.