We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
 
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Jobs online - take it ...or lose your benefits ... ultimatum from Ian Duncan Smith.


Aitchbee

Likes # 0

Ian Duncan Smith is rolling out his online-strategy in the new year to get benefit claimants back to work.

Will it work. Sorry no links at the moment.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

I did accept earlier that there are 'wasters', but I feel they are not as large (in overall percentage terms) as many would like us to think - but as it's virtually impossible to detect every case at an individual level, it suits governments to use their 'blackening all' method to stir up support for any draconian measures.

"..they have the evidence from those who work in social services."

Having served for some years in a government statistical organisation, pardon me if I don't accept the premise of such 'evidence'.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

spider9

"...pardon me if I don't accept the premise of such 'evidence'."

Of course I will, but you're asking us to accept your '20 people chasing every job' statement, and you still haven't provided the source of that information.

In view of your experience in 'a government statistical organisation' I imagine it must have been a reliable one?

Like this post
Chronos the 2nd

Likes # 0

It was 60%, not 68%, when I heard that number but those sorts of figures do tend to rise as they get repeated. I bow to your superior hearing and of course the 8% difference really does make a difference.

Saying if 'people in work were actually paid a decent living wage' is real head in the sand stuff.

Was it not the Tories that bleated prior to the minimum wage that bringing it in would be the ruin of the country, thousands of jobs would be lost, hundreds of companies would move abroad where work force exploitation is so much simpler?

Oh and by the way my head is not in the sand, I am entitled to my opinion which is not just based on what I read in the papers or watch on the news, I am old enough to have experienced quite a bit of employment and bosses. You and your mate seem to think that your opinions are more valid here than those of rest of us, little eye opener here, they are not.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"Chronos the 2nd"

"You and your mate seem to think that your opinions are more valid here than those of rest of us, little eye opener here, they are not."

I assume that the 'mate' you refer to is me. If it is,you might at least have the courage to be offensive to my face, rather than slip a reference into a post addressed to someone else - it's cowardice, plain and simple.

My opinions are no more valid than anyone else's, and are open to question by anyone. Please feel free to argue against what I say at any time, but be prepared to have what you say disputed in just the same way. You are typical of many people who seem to think that because someone picks you up on something you have a right to make accusations of unfairness.

A little eye-opener for you here - it's a tough world, and if you want to take part in a discussion you should be prepared to argue your case properly, instead of skulking around, making offensive remarks about other people behind their backs.

I don't have 'mates' here - I don't know any of the forum members from Adam - but there are people whose opinions I respect, because they research facts before posting, rather than quoting 'facts' that can't be backed up with source references.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

FE

I am unable to locate the source of my 'twenty' at present, it was a figure used in another discussion, and I only meant it to be a generalisation. Perhaps you might be able to provide me with the correct one. It was not, however, central to the other points I have been making in this thread and hope we won't get fixated on it.

fourm member

I completely missed your post of 9-56am today (laston the page, easy to miss is my only excuse!), but we do seem to be in agreement, generally on the matter.

Like this post
Joseph Kerr

Likes # 0

On your forum is hardly behind your back, FE. You are a giggle sometimes.

Like this post
pavvi

Likes # 0

The problem with employing unemployed people on jobs for their benefit money or as is often the case, a £10 supplement is that it doesn't create jobs, just work, and enables Governments of all colours to take them off the statistics. It's not job creation, it's statistics deletion.

Think about it - if you are a company and you can employ someone for £70 a week rather than £200 a week, which would you pick? Yes scrupulous employers think about the long term for the employees, but I well remember the days of YTS where my younger brother worked for a bakery for pennies in the hope of a permanent job. The bakery never ever took on YTS trainees. The moment they had to be paid properly, they were laid off and the next batch or trainees taken on.

Someone I know who is in his 60's and has paid tax all his life went to the dole office and it was suggested that he do a training 'scheme' for £10 a week on top of his dole money for 35 hours a week. This would be a 3 year course by which time he would be 64. Who is going to employ someone for a year? Employment isn't about getting people from the jobless lists. Governments of all colours should actually post figures of those in paid employment rather than those off work and claiming specified benefits. The motive for finding people 'work' has little to do with gaining them a career or even a meaningful job. It's all about getting people off one list to another so they can claim they have reduced unemployment. You rarely see statistics about increased employment.

As the saying goes, there's lies, damned lies and statistics.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

pavvi

Absolutely correct!

As I said earlier, the unemployed are such easy targets for any government wanting to 'deflect' issues. Likewise benfits 'cheats' and immigrants.

Like this post
cream.

Likes # 0

My sister has worked in the labour exchange / job center on and off for nearly 40 years.

Here is an example of those seeking work.

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/thousands-apply-for-150-jobs-1-4723148

In many instances it is not unusual for 50+ to apply for single jobs on offer. Graduates applying for shelf stacking, road cleaning or emptying dustbins is normal.

She says there is a very small minority who work the system but they are forced onto training schemes and voluntary work.

Wages throughout the UK 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/nov/24/wages-britain-ashe-mapped

Like this post
woody

Likes # 0

PAVVi - Think about it - if you are a company and you can employ someone for £70 a week

Where do you get your figs from or are you so desperate you make them up?

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Netflix to introduce price increase: New subcribers to start with

IDG UK Sites

Apple financial results: iPhones, iPads & Macs sales for Apple's Q2 2014, plus shares to split

IDG UK Sites

Twitter - not news

IDG UK Sites

See Moo Studios' new animated advert for Blue Moon beer