|
Post by Shrewed on Nov 8, 2010 10:47:01 GMT 1
Here you need to use a little imagination. Not a Lot. Picture Mr X being made redundant by the council as a result of ConDem cuts. He spends the next 12 months applying for hundreds of jobs but because there are 4 million unemployed he is unsuccessful. A year on from being made redundant by the council he is forced to return there to do his old job for no pay. You wouldn't believe this if it was in a book, but its exactly what could happen under ConDem proposals. Yes the unemployed should be encouraged to work, should be paid the going rate for the job but should not be used as cheap labour to try and cover up for the cuts in vital services. Maybe the South Stand Tories would like to comment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 10:53:42 GMT 1
Maybe the South Stand Tories would like to comment. im sure they will comment Ed, getting a sensible answer is another question though.
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Nov 8, 2010 10:56:35 GMT 1
I'm sure your chosen audience whoever they are will pop along idc but thought I'd come in. # We will need to wait to see more of the detail of the plan but this sample part from the BBC story of the proposal in no way sits with the circumstance you outline - it is aimed at those who are not looking for work, have never worked or take work in the black market. Surely not more cheap & lazy left wing scaremongering " Under the plan, claimants thought to need "experience of the habits and routines of working life" could be put on 30-hour-a-week placements. Anyone refusing to take part or failing to turn up on time could have their £65 Jobseekers' Allowance stopped for at least three months. The Work Activity scheme is said to be designed to flush out claimants who have opted for a life on benefits or are doing undeclared jobs on the side " Full article here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11706545
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 11:13:10 GMT 1
some other quotes from that article.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams (a well known left wing sympathiser), expressed his concern, telling the BBC: "People who are struggling to find work and struggling to find a secure future are - I think - driven further into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair, when the pressure is on in that way.
Harriet Harmon
But she said the government needed to understand that to get people back into work, there had to be jobs for them to go to - and at the moment there were five people chasing each vacancy.
This is going to pan out much the same as it did in the late 70s early 80s, the tories (with the help and support of the libdems) are going to make millions unemployed, then punish the unemployed for not having jobs.
If these jobs exist in local government, doing manual work ect, then why not pay people the going rate to do them?
This is what camerons big society is all about, taking away peoples jobs, genuine jobs that need to be done and have a place in our society, and make people do it for next to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Nov 8, 2010 11:46:46 GMT 1
If these jobs exist in local government, doing manual work ect, then why not pay people the going rate to do them? This is where I'm a tad confused. So folk are unemployed yet they can find work for them to do? So surely why not just employ them to do that work? Is it more that certain folk are not prepared to take on certain jobs or? By the by Hope, when you say working for no pay thats not quite true is it? They'd be earning their benefits? But evenso, they won't getting what they should be earning I guess...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 11:59:51 GMT 1
I quite like the idea.
Everyone has a respsonsibility to give something back to society. The easiest way of course is through tax on your earnings. Other people do extra on top through volunteering, charity work etc....
People out of work for a year will have an opportunity to give something back to society, to the community. They might even be able to learn some new skills that will help in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 12:06:32 GMT 1
[ This is where I'm a tad confused. So folk are unemployed yet they can find work for them to do? So surely why not just employ them to do that work? Is it more that certain folk are not prepared to take on certain jobs or? ... I can see why, but let me say that i have never defended the idea that people who refuse to work should still get benefits, infact im sure the case still is and always has been that those who are not prepared to work, or are not seeking work, shouldnt get benefits? maybe someone can clarify. i think the point is however, as Ed has said, that how many million people are going to be made redundant from local government, to then potentialy find themselves doing the same job for next to nothing / their benefits? are local authorities going to find themselves under pressure (left wing ones, tories will love it) to cut jobs in many areas and then fill the void by using this new supply of cheap labour?
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Nov 8, 2010 12:21:42 GMT 1
[ This is where I'm a tad confused. So folk are unemployed yet they can find work for them to do? So surely why not just employ them to do that work? Is it more that certain folk are not prepared to take on certain jobs or? ... I can see why, but let me say that i have never defended the idea that people who refuse to work should still get benefits, infact im sure the case still is and always has been that those who are not prepared to work, or are not seeking work, shouldnt get benefits? maybe someone can clarify. i think the point is however, as Ed has said, that how many million people are going to be made redundant from local government, to then potentialy find themselves doing the same job for next to nothing / their benefits? are local authorities going to find themselves under pressure (left wing ones, tories will love it) to cut jobs in many areas and then fill the void by using this new supply of cheap labour? Not sure if you are being deliberately provocative to carry on the usual let's criticise every plan the coalition has, or if I have missed the point of this plan or if you have simply missed the point, but this story does not make any mention of anyone who has recently been made redundant being forced to do cheap labour. My slant is that this is only aimed as I said earlier at those who have never worked, those who refuse to do work or those who claim benefits and work on the side in the black market. To my mind it is potentially a good plan. It will tackle in part the many thousands of unemployed who have no interest in working whatsoever (walk around any large town or city and you will see them) but perhaps more importantly it will give some assistance & structure to those who have perhaps never worked ahead of hopefully making themselves available for future jobs. If you have never worked, maybe you need some help around the disciplines of arriving at work on time, going to work even if you are not feeling 100% or the weather's cr@p, skills such as working as part of a team, working to targets or time pressures etc. Better to do this as part of a programme that also benefits society as a whole rather than going into any job completely raw and facing issues from day 1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 12:38:43 GMT 1
[Not sure if you are being deliberately provocative. not at all and im sorry if it reads like that. Long term unemployed is defined as someone out of work for one year or longer. how many local authority workers are going to be made unemployed over the coming 12 to 24 months? Best guess is say, 1 million. a fair proportion of those will find it hard to find a new job with the present situation of 5 applicants for every available job. many are likely to remain unemployed therefore for a considerable time. local authorities are going to be passing many jobs that are at present, proper jobs, properly paid, pensioned ect, over to the voluntary sector. for example, a man now works for the local council picking litter in the parks. he is made redundant and his job given to the voluntary sector, they get the unemployed to do the job instead. the man who used to do it cant get a new job, he finds himself 12 months down the line doing the job he used to get a pension, holidays and £X wages for, for his benefit payments instead. To my mind, if the unemployed dont want to work, they shouldnt get benefits. hope that clears it up?
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Nov 8, 2010 13:36:52 GMT 1
I'm glad that Harriet Harmon is "...wait to see the full details of the proposals on Thursday before giving her verdict." I think we all should.
Anyhow; if the scheme is designed to go after the long-term unemployed who are quiet happy to receive benefit as opposed to try and find work then surely it can only be a good thing?
Maybe Mr X (or Mrs and Miss) needn't worry.
Isn't this an extension of various back to work schemes already in place?
Mrs O's friend has just completed a 120 hours work placement after long term illness and has secured a part-time job with them starting to-day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 13:53:42 GMT 1
As with Mark, I'd like to see the full details, but presumably this threat is not aimed at those who lose their job, can't find a new job for 12+ months, but are actively searching for employment i.e. sending in applications for new jobs etc? Rather it's geared towards those who have shown no interest in returning to employment.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Nov 8, 2010 14:29:14 GMT 1
I did suggest that you need to use just a little imagination.
What really seems unjust of the Condem's is the thought that people will lose their jobs providing essential services to be replaced by forced free labour. If a job is necessary then the person doing it should be paid the going rate.
Wasn't it Cameron and Clegg that said it should always pay more to work than to be on benefit.
I believe that the unemployed should earn their benefit by providing a service to the community but it should be at the going rate and not at the expense of somebody elses job.
Ofcourse the outline of the proposal have been leaked to the media thats how all Governments work.
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Nov 8, 2010 15:09:19 GMT 1
I did suggest that you need to use just a little imagination. What really seems unjust of the Condem's is the thought that people will lose their jobs providing essential services to be replaced by forced free labour. If a job is necessary then the person doing it should be paid the going rate. Wasn't it Cameron and Clegg that said it should always pay more to work than to be on benefit. I believe that the unemployed should earn their benefit by providing a service to the community but it should be at the going rate and not at the expense of somebody elses job. Ofcourse the outline of the proposal have been leaked to the media thats how all Governments work. And no doubt the 'going rate' would be the much touted 'living wage' of £8 + an hour
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Nov 8, 2010 16:02:35 GMT 1
And no doubt the 'going rate' would be the much touted 'living wage' of £8 + an hour I suspect in parts of the country even £8+ an hour isn't a living wage. For the last 30 years this country has been going downhill fast because of the greed of a few and the short term nature of big business. Surely if we want to ensure that nobody is better off on benefit we should ensure that people are paid a living wage not reduce the benefit of the many because of the actions of a few.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Nov 8, 2010 18:04:42 GMT 1
Full details of this are yet to emerge but I'd imagine the target of this will be long term unemployed who are Not in education, employment or training (Neets) rather than those who have worked but have recently been made redundant.
Working with the Neets group is something I'd agree 100% with as often unemployment goes through 2-3 generations where there has been a benefits culture, and unfortunately other health and social problems are often associated with these people and the areas they live. You wouldn't need to guess too much where high levels of Neets are in Shropshire
However I'm not sure the "force them to work" idea necessarily works as the amount of money needed to find potential work and actually get people to do it is massive. I fear what will happen is benefits will stop and instead of working less "legitimate" career paths will be taken - creating much more expense to local government
Tackling the problem needs intervention across a whole section of government over a long period of time and needs money spent for long term savings. I'm not sure the current government are willing to take that approach but are instead doing the "media friendly" thing and being "tough" on benefits not the cause of benefit culture.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Nov 8, 2010 18:18:53 GMT 1
I am puzzled by one thing the new goverment have said People who work will be better off? Well i will be £40-£50 worse of a week and that is without free school dinners for my kids.If only i knew that would happen i would not of bothered.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Nov 8, 2010 18:44:37 GMT 1
I am puzzled by one thing the new goverment have said People who work will be better off? Well i will be £40-£50 worse of a week and that is without free school dinners for my kids.If only i knew that would happen i would not of bothered. Just another broken Condem promise Martin.
|
|
|
Post by SP on Nov 8, 2010 20:32:53 GMT 1
I am puzzled by one thing the new goverment have said People who work will be better off? Well i will be £40-£50 worse of a week and that is without free school dinners for my kids.If only i knew that would happen i would not of bothered. Is that down to loss of benefits? I don't have much of an understanding of politics, but working at tesco over the summer, they took on people on work placements who were getting job seekers allowance as well as other benefits. Speaking to a couple of them about if they got a part-time / full time job, would they take it, and they would say no, because the benefits they were on paid more than they would have got in a job. Surely that will / must have implications further down the line if living on benefits pays more than a job does???
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 8, 2010 21:00:14 GMT 1
In many areas the number of people out of work far outstrips the number of vacancies.
Nationally, there are 2.5 million people out of work and fewer than 500,000 job vacancies.
People can't work if the jobs don't exist. We know that nearly half a million public sector workers will be made redundant and this will have a knock on effect in the private sector.
If there are jobs to be done they should be offered at the minimum wage at the very least. To fail to do so is to deny somebody the right to dignity at work.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 8, 2010 21:14:12 GMT 1
Just as a point of information JSA is currently £50.95 a week for those under 25 and £64.30 for those over 25.
Working a thirty hour week for just over £60 quid, less if you happen to be under 25?
Sorry, I don't care how long someone has been unemployed, that is absolutely taking the p**s and an affront to someone's dignity.
Has anyone also considered that if people's benefits are stopped if they don't comply with this, they will seek alternative forms of income ie crime?
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Nov 8, 2010 21:31:48 GMT 1
Has anyone also considered that if people's benefits are stopped if they don't comply with this, they will seek alternative forms of income ie crime? I think that's a key point - clearly the vast majority of those who are unemployed are good law abiding citizens, but it seems a little daft to think people playing the benefits system are going to suddenly start working a 30 hour week for £65 It will also need a lot of work for someone - job centre staff presumably - to link the unemployed to suitable jobs with suitable employers. Certainly think changing the benefit v work situation is vital, but if the government think it's going to lead to savings from the budget I think they might be mistaken. Its difficult enough when jobs are plentiful, more so when there are fewer jobs around
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Nov 8, 2010 21:58:59 GMT 1
I think it's commendable that at least the Government is having a go at tackling the issue. They may not get it completely right - it may cause pain for some, but something has to be done. But I would rather that than to continue the "head in the sand talk tough - do nothing" politics of others. Whilst were on the subject of jobs the vast amount created under the previous administration went to foreigners, those jobs could of course have employed many many people from this country. Can't seem to remember the "same olds" moaning when the last Government signed away millions of jobs. PS Jack Duckworth has just died !
|
|
|
Post by keithyshrew25 on Nov 8, 2010 22:18:03 GMT 1
This new labour source should not be used to replace existing council roles, obviously, but I don;t think anyone would disagree that with the finite budgets available to them there are some tasks that councils are going to be unable to commit large amounts of funding to (graffitti removal, keeping footpaths clear, that sort of thing) so why shouldn't the void be filled by people looking for work? Or what about working for local charities instead, I'm sure they could be included in the scheme?
Not full time, as they still need to be looking, but 20 hours a week would get them back in the swing of things. When I was unemployed the worst thing was having nothing constructive to do with myself, I personally would have jumped at the opportunity as long as it did not impede my job search.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 8, 2010 22:44:36 GMT 1
The vast majority of jobs created by UK economic activity went to foreign workers because the jobs were created in Shanghai and other far away places - be it by UK company investments, UK company contracts or UK consumer spending. This is just the same old fraud being committed by the economic and political elites except this time its not just the coal-mine, car plant, smelting works near you its the air-conditioned office on an outlying business park too. It's about "creating incentives to work" and drawing more people into the labour markets on top of the already unemployed by making people poorer. meanwhile at the other end of the income scale incentives seem to have a different gravitational pull: bit.ly/91lbGzGuess when the duration of unemployment increases, here's the US data (more accessible than the UK data): tinyurl.com/2fard7bIt's not hard: deficient aggregate demand accompanied by: a change in trend of consumer credit: tinyurl.com/2beej6jA change in direction of company loans tinyurl.com/34mp8nwOnly buoyed by government expenditure to date; tinyurl.com/3amwdqbThe Government expenditure growth will stop dead in its tracks. Services that we value will be cut or disappear but there's no compunction about creating money out of thin air and giving it to banks. And the amount of money we are talking about here is astronomical: nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2010.pdfI'm probably challenging people's attention spans with this next link:
|
|
|
Post by griff6732 on Nov 8, 2010 23:26:38 GMT 1
Bravo get the lazy sods off their asses
|
|
|
Post by gingashrew on Nov 9, 2010 1:14:45 GMT 1
Thanks Sean, interesting sources. Is Cable still advocating a renewed distinction between Investment banks and high street / people's service banks or has that bird flown? What do you think about Douglas Carswells proposals?
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 9, 2010 9:19:53 GMT 1
I posted a vid of Carswell in the HoC sometime last month. Here it is again: In fact I quite like Carwell's style, here is his take on the latest government announcement: www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=1660On the whole I think this is a useful proposal. There's a parallel between the money you deposit with a bank and the money you invest in a with profits fund. 10 years ago people realised that their legal right to their money in their with profits investments, pensions etc was edged around with various caveats. As a result the popularity of with profits funds went down the tubes. When people realise that the legal ownership of the money they deposit is similarly subject to caveats then we'll be getting somewhere. As Carswell says in the link above: why allow banks the legal privilege of sub-letting your money without your knowledge or consent? With regard to the current government it is all eyes on the independent commission for banking: bankingcommission.independent.gov.uk/bankingcommission/I think there will inevitably be change, but current thinking means that it will be limited by what happens elsewhere - because banking is such a large part of what the UK does that it has to remain competitive internationally. One interesting aspect to what the government is currently doing is: "The banks should follow not only the letter of the law but its spirit. A year ago the previous Government said that banks would be required to sign up to a Code of Practice on Taxation. Only four out of fifteen have done so. The Chancellor has told HM Revenue and Customs to work with the banking sector to ensure that the remaining banks have implemented the Code of Practice by the end of November." Meanwhile in Ireland: www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1108/1224282865400.html
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Nov 9, 2010 9:36:24 GMT 1
I think it's commendable that at least the Government is having a go at tackling the issue. They may not get it completely right - it may cause pain for some, but something has to be done. But I would rather that than to continue the "head in the sand talk tough - do nothing" politics of others. Whilst were on the subject of jobs the vast amount created under the previous administration went to foreigners, those jobs could of course have employed many many people from this country. Can't seem to remember the "same olds" moaning when the last Government signed away millions of jobs. PS Jack Duckworth has just died ! Not sure whether it is head in the sand or just old age catching up but Labour introduced a Workfare scheme for the under 25's the major difference being that the Labour scheme paid a proper wage and lasted for a minimum of 3 months. Not a scheme where the Government creates the unemployment and then fills the post with forced free labour. As far as immigration remind me which party took us into the EU and which party signed the treaties of Maastrict and Nice which led to the free movement of labour.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 9, 2010 9:38:11 GMT 1
This new labour source should not be used to replace existing council roles, obviously, but I don;t think anyone would disagree that with the finite budgets available to them there are some tasks that councils are going to be unable to commit large amounts of funding to (graffitti removal, keeping footpaths clear, that sort of thing) so why shouldn't the void be filled by people looking for work? Or what about working for local charities instead, I'm sure they could be included in the scheme? But isn't this a case of paid jobs disappearing from the market and then reappearing as unpaid, voluntary 'placements' for the long term unemployed? The ethics of this are suspect at best. It's clearly open to exploitation and could well exacerbate unemployment. If you're an employer then why employ someone at the going rate when you could get a job seeker in, which costs you nothing in wages, and you're financially rewarded for creating a placement? You could even have the absurd situation that someone will be asked to do their previous paid job on a voluntary basis on pain of having their benefits withdrawn. Perhaps this might make sense if the number of job opportunities outnumbered the number of unemployed. In reality the inverse is true. Why don't the coalition publish the vacancies:unemployed ratio? Because it wouldn't back their 'blame the unemployed' rhetoric? Half a million public sector workers are going to be made unemployed, which will have a knock on effect in the private sector, VAT will rise, interest rates are unlikely to remain as low as they have been. And at this time, the coalition announce they are going to introduce these measures for people who have the temerity not to find jobs which don't exist. I don't believe this is to 'help people back to work', if they wanted to that, they could begin by creating jobs. The austerity measures the coalition have introduced have ensured there will be fewer jobs and far more people looking for them (should help keep wages nice and low).
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Nov 9, 2010 10:06:30 GMT 1
This new labour source should not be used to replace existing council roles, obviously, but I don;t think anyone would disagree that with the finite budgets available to them there are some tasks that councils are going to be unable to commit large amounts of funding to (graffitti removal, keeping footpaths clear, that sort of thing) so why shouldn't the void be filled by people looking for work? Or what about working for local charities instead, I'm sure they could be included in the scheme? But isn't this a case of paid jobs disappearing from the market and then reappearing as unpaid, voluntary 'placements' for the long term unemployed? The ethics of this are suspect at best. It's clearly open to exploitation and could well exacerbate unemployment. If you're an employer then why employ someone at the going rate when you could get a job seeker in, which costs you nothing in wages, and you're financially rewarded for creating a placement? You could even have the absurd situation that someone will be asked to do their previous paid job on a voluntary basis on pain of having their benefits withdrawn. Perhaps this might make sense if the number of job opportunities outnumbered the number of unemployed. In reality the inverse is true. Why don't the coalition publish the vacancies:unemployed ratio? Because it wouldn't back their 'blame the unemployed' rhetoric? Half a million public sector workers are going to be made unemployed, which will have a knock on effect in the private sector, VAT will rise, interest rates are unlikely to remain as low as they have been. And at this time, the coalition announce they are going to introduce these measures for people who have the temerity not to find jobs which don't exist. I don't believe this is to 'help people back to work', if they wanted to that, they could begin by creating jobs. The austerity measures the coalition have introduced have ensured there will be fewer jobs and far more people looking for them (should help keep wages nice and low). I would have thought that if as you state 'You could even have the absurd situation that someone will be asked to do their previous paid job on a voluntary basis' that this would incur an Industrial Tribunal visit for unfair dismissal would it not
|
|