Asda to Create 7000 new jobs.

Really2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7855482.stm
"The firm, part of US giant Wal-Mart, said about 3,700 of the new jobs would be created by opening 14 new stores and the extension of 15 existing outlets.
An additional 2,000 positions are being created at its home shopping unit, plus about 1,000 through organic growth."

"Asda said it aimed to specifically target long-term unemployed people for 3,000 of the new vacancies, which are both full-time and part-time. "

Some good news for those in the retail sector who have been made redundant.

chalkie99

They are not creating any jobs in reality.

No one can really say "Oh! Thank God! At last there will be a shop we can spend our money in."

No one goes hungry in this country for a lack of existing shops and every time one of the big supermarket chains expands it costs even more jobs in smaller companies, simply because the giants know they can bring economies of scale and operate more efficiently.

It annoys me when the media report this as good news.

StevieJ

chalkie99 wrote: »

They are not creating any jobs in reality.

No one can really say "Oh! Thank God! At last there will be a shop we can spend our money in."

No one goes hungry in this country for a lack of existing shops and every time one of the big supermarket chains expands it costs even more jobs in smaller companies, simply because the giants know they can bring economies of scale and operate more efficiently.

It annoys me when the media report this as good news.

It may be replacing jobs lost at Woolworths, ASDA has certainly done that on my local OOT shopping mall. Good news I think :T

SingleSue

I would agree Stevie....any company creating jobs at this moment surely has to be good news.

Now I wonder if we can tempt them to come to Felixstowe......

bubblesmoney

Really2 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7855482.stm
"The firm, part of US giant Wal-Mart, said about 3,700 of the new jobs would be created by opening 14 new stores and the extension of 15 existing outlets.
An additional 2,000 positions are being created at its home shopping unit, plus about 1,000 through organic growth."

"Asda said it aimed to specifically target long-term unemployed people for 3,000 of the new vacancies, which are both full-time and part-time. "

Some good news for those in the retail sector who have been made redundant.

wonder how they can reserve the 3000 posts for longterm unemployed only. wont this be against employment laws if they bar recently made redundant people or those who are just looking for another job or newly moved to that area if partner lives in that area, would they ask such people to buzz off because they are looking to get the longterm unemployed because they get financial incentives from the govt for doing so. there are some situations where positive discrimination is allowed under legislation i think but am not sure whether what they are proposing now is legal as they discriminate against those recently made redundant or those just looking for another job and favour longterm unemployed.

another factor to think is how this will affect customer service at these branches. the way to make longterm unemployed to work is not to give companies incentives to hire them but to cut financial incentives for the long term unemployed to force them to work. there will be some soon posting that this will increase crime but such people should look at the clinton welfare reform program which specifically made such welfare changes and cut benefits to unemployed single mums on welfare and other longterm unemployed and this actually got more people to work because they had to work otherwise they would suffer the consequences of the choices they made.

as for offsetting any expected increase in crime- crime has to be dealth with by an iron hand and not by the softy approach we often see here where even after 60 odd offences people get let off with light sentences, such people should have the book thrown at them and also prison shouldnt be a place of comfort, no TV or at the max just terrestrial channels, no smoking, they should be made to work in chain gangs and pay their debt to society, only if they work in prison should they be allowed access to basic communal tv viewing (channel should be choice of warden and not prisoners), make them hate prison enough so that they never want to do a crime again, food also should be basic providing nutrition and as cheap as possible and made as routine and basic as possible, crime inside prisons should get solitary confinements and should get let out to the grounds only if they maintain good behavior. only if there is adequate deterance in sentencing and prison conditions will there be any improvement in crime statistics. the law should aim to protect law abiding citizens by default and not run to the criminals aid.

"Today we are taking a historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be: a second chance, not a way of life," Clinton declared in signing the measure, which will affect tens of millions of poor Americans, largely by mandating work requirements and imposing a five-year lifetime limit on welfare help to needy families.
..............
The heart of the complex new law abolishes Aid to Families With Dependent Children, the government's welfare bulwark, which provides monthly cash benefits to 12.8 million people, including more than 8 million children.
.....................
Job creation will be a particular state burden, since the law requires most poor adults to find a job within two years of first receiving aid.
..............

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/issues/money/mondepth/0823welfare-clinton.html

also see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

PRWORA proposed TANF as AFDC’s replacement. The Congressional findings in PRWORA highlighted dependency, out-of-wedlock birth, and intergenerational poverty as the main contributors to a faulty system.[9] In instituting a block grant program, PRWORA granted states the ability to design their own systems, as long as states met a set of basic federal requirements. The bill's primary requirements and effects included:

• Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
• Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
• Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
• Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.

In granting states wider latitude for designing their own programs, some states have decided to place additional requirements on recipients. Although the law placed a time limit for benefits supported by federal funds of no more than 2 consecutive years and no more than 5 years over a lifetime, some states have enacted briefer limits. All states, however, have allowed exceptions with the intent of not punishing children because their parents have gone over the time limit. Federal requirements have ensured some measure of uniformity across states, but the block grant approach has led individual states to distribute federal money in different ways. Certain states more actively encourage education, others use the money to help fund private enterprises helping job seekers.
The legislation also greatly limited funds available for unmarried parents under 18, and restricted any funding to immigrants (legal or illegal).[3] Some state programs emphasized a shift towards work with names such as "Wisconsin Works" and "WorkFirst". Between 1997 and 2000, enormous numbers of the poor have left or been terminated from the program, with a national drop of 53% in total recipients.[10] Since there is less training and education available than with the earlier JOBS program, these "last hired, first fired" recipients have been returning to welfare and the caseloads have been increasing

one thing to note though is that giving incentives for employers to hire longterm employment might artificially encourage them to get jobs but the minute these incentives go they get fired as happened in usa. so moral of the story is make them work not with incentives but with cuts in welfare, when their !!!! is on a sling to nowhere they will have no choice but to work.

another issue that cant be ignored whether this type of reform actually reduces poverty. there is conflicting evidence from the states in this regard but the evidence is clear that reliance on benefits decreased by 50% !!!!!!!!but on the other hand being on benefits doesnt get one out of poverty and being equally poor but still working is better for the individual as atleast they have a chance for better things than just sitting on their backsides on benefits longterm.

agent_orange_2

SingleSue wrote: »

I would agree Stevie....any company creating jobs at this moment surely has to be good news.

Now I wonder if we can tempt them to come to Felixstowe......

I saw some activity on the old bus station site this morning. Are they finally starting on Lidls?

geoffky

bubblesmoney wrote: »

wonder how they can reserve the 3000 posts for longterm unemployed only. wont this be against employment laws if they bar recently made redundant people or those who are just looking for another job or newly moved to that area if partner lives in that area, would they ask such people to buzz off because they are looking to get the longterm unemployed because they get financial incentives from the govt for doing so. there are some situations where positive discrimination is allowed under legislation i think but am not sure whether what they are proposing now is legal as they discriminate against those recently made redundant or those just looking for another job and favour longterm unemployed.

another factor to think is how this will affect customer service at these branches. the way to make longterm unemployed to work is not to give companies incentives to hire them but to cut financial incentives for the long term unemployed to force them to work. there will be some soon posting that this will increase crime but such people should look at the clinton welfare reform program which specifically made such welfare changes and cut benefits to unemployed single mums on welfare and other longterm unemployed and this actually got more people to work because they had to work otherwise they would suffer the consequences of the choices they made.

as for offsetting any expected increase in crime- crime has to be dealth with by an iron hand and not by the softy approach we often see here where even after 60 odd offences people get let off with light sentences, such people should have the book thrown at them and also prison shouldnt be a place of comfort, no TV or at the max just terrestrial channels, no smoking, they should be made to work in chain gangs and pay their debt to society, only if they work in prison should they be allowed access to basic communal tv viewing (channel should be choice of warden and not prisoners), make them hate prison enough so that they never want to do a crime again, food also should be basic providing nutrition and as cheap as possible and made as routine and basic as possible, crime inside prisons should get solitary confinements and should get let out to the grounds only if they maintain good behavior. only if there is adequate deterance in sentencing and prison conditions will there be any improvement in crime statistics. the law should aim to protect law abiding citizens by default and not run to the criminals aid.

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/issues/money/mondepth/0823welfare-clinton.html

also see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

one thing to note though is that giving incentives for employers to hire longterm employment might artificially encourage them to get jobs but the minute these incentives go they get fired as happened in usa. so moral of the story is make them work not with incentives but with cuts in welfare, when their !!!! is on a sling to nowhere they will have no choice but to work.

another issue that cant be ignored whether this type of reform actually reduces poverty. there is conflicting evidence from the states in this regard but the evidence is clear that reliance on benefits decreased by 50% !!!!!!!!but on the other hand being on benefits doesnt get one out of poverty and being equally poor but still working is better for the individual as atleast they have a chance for better things than just sitting on their backsides on benefits longterm.

I would love you to end up on your !!!! with know where to turn and then i would see what you really would like to happen..the above is never going to happen and you are a nut job..

SingleSue

agent_orange wrote: »

I saw some activity on the old bus station site this morning. Are they finally starting on Lidls?

It certainly appears so....hope it is!

bubblesmoney

geoffky wrote: »

I would love you to end up on your !!!! with know where to turn and then i would see what you really would like to happen..the above is never going to happen and you are a nut job..

if i was down on my ar*e with no where to turn to, i would turn to my savings (having been prudent in the past and have managed to save) and my family to look after me which they would just as i would look after them. i dont need someones handouts to live on. even if something were to happen to me tomorrow i have made adequate provision for my family to live in my absense, my wife would just have the house to get rid off and i have said to sell it at a loss (as much as needed) so that its a quick sale. even if i lost every bit of my satisfactory savings and job in the uk i wouldnt be a happy bunny losing my savings but i could still live easily elsewhere, would still have a home to live in and a place to work, even if i couldnt work i could still live my life without having to beg a penny. and no i wasnt born with a silver spoon neither were my parents. infact far from it we have had enough problems and still made it through hard work and not needing to benefit or anything of that kind elsewhere. by our share of problems i mean being homeless, no food, reading by the street lights, father as child needing to do manual labour to feed themselves(him and younger sibling), studying at night schools while doing manual labour during day, taking loans for studies which was approved by bank chairman with loan guarantee column filled in by chairman as 'applicants character' when he was initially refused by lower bank staff, ill health, u name it we have been through it. so save your curses because even if they do happen i and my family will survive through hard work and not need to beg for a hand out from anyone far less the govt.

people improve through hard work not by getting hand outs. my extended family is living proof that people improve with hard work and family support through thick and thin. coming from nothing (including lack of food, home, most of them needing to work even as children or just out of shool in far off places with no home, sleeping in the office while working as handyman in the office during day and studying for many qualifications at night schools and colleges and going on to buy out huge companies where they started out as the handyman fetching tea for others, some in just the 1st generation owning multinational companies, some being asked by usa authorities to dep-chair multilateral trade body, a few in 2nd gen now on boards of multinational banks and companies and almost everyone doing well. all through hard work, everyonbe had more than their share of severe financial hardship even by developing world standards but still all made it not by getting handouts but by hard work even while staying 13 or more in a one bed houses, even while sleeping on office tables at work because had no home or as lodgers and ill health in family too including looking after family members with stroke and also disabled children all through their own efforts. so save your curses we have seen bad days and worse, even if we do fall again we will still get back on our feet through hard work and not through handouts.

hope you had some decency to even look at the link to the clinton welfare program instead of just heaping abuses on me, then you would have seen which brought about radical changes in welfare and cut benefit claimants by 53% in 3y and got them to work. i am not saying that that program is the panacea to all problems but it is a start with some encouraging success rates. there is no golden bullet but getting people to work (for those who can work) is always a good thing. just throwing benefits at people is not always good. benefits are needed for the people who really need them. by any stretch of imagination i am sure there a hundreds of thousands out there getting benefits when they should be working. thats all i was trying to say.

as for benfit changes not happening, keep on dreaming, changes are already underway companies have been contracted to hire doctors (out of the nhs) for asessing benfit claimants for their ability to work. this will be taken off GPs hands. so keep dreaming that the benefits gravy train will continue. no country can afford unlimited benefits for unlimited time for people who can work. allowing such things to happen is illtreating other hard woorking people contributing to the economy and the countrys good.

olly300

I personally don't see how supermarket jobs are going to replace better paid jobs in the car industry, financial services or engineering.

fc123

Would have been more satisfying if the overpaid bankers ended up shelf filling on min wage/ 4 hour contract (but do 2 X 4 hr shift over 9 hours and NO pay for your lunch hour....a lean, mean profit machine)

But they won't...most have enough booty stashed away to have a long holiday.