Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
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.
Give NO free labour to ANY company that is listed on the stock exchange and can afford to employ necessary staff.
Do NOT allow any employment agencies to get involved or advertise in job centres.
-----------------
This allows small business to afford to grow, and to pay what is often disproportionate tax and other bills.
It makes bigger corporations actually employ and pay people to do jobs. These corporations CAN afford to do this.
It reduces unemployment.
It gives unemployed people a chance to really be a bigger part of their own future and a chance to really care about those giving them the opportunity.
©Studyform Dec 2014
Give NO free labour to ANY company that is listed on the stock exchange and can afford to employ necessary staff.
Do NOT allow any employment agencies to get involved or advertise in job centres.
-----------------
This allows small business to afford to grow, and to pay what is often disproportionate tax and other bills.
It makes bigger corporations actually employ and pay people to do jobs. These corporations CAN afford to do this.
It reduces unemployment.
It gives unemployed people a chance to really be a bigger part of their own future and a chance to really care about those giving them the opportunity.
©Studyform Dec 2014
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 62
|
By:
Are they employable people
|
|
By:
Interesting idea.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I'd agree with anything that gets rid of parasitic employment agencies.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
there's always lab experiments they can do
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
VG EO
 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
Crime keeps people in work
|
|
By:
No because they would be classed as disabled rather than just out of work.
Huge difference. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
How is it slavery?
Ridiculous. |
|
By:
150 a week plus rent paid for otherwise it wouldnt be worth it.
|
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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..... |
|
By:
You make another person rich because you don't have the ability to go it alone
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
The slavery comment is still making me laugh.
Expecting someone to work for the money they get is just like being a slave. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
If some small businesses need more staff but can`t afford it, then they shouldn`t be in business.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Probably EO because unemployed graduates and professional people won`t belittle themselves to work in menial jobs.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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"
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
I agree EO but I think that it`s true.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Very true EO.
|