Working for your benefits

cindy101

Coeus wrote: »

This acknowledges about you what I had concluded from your previous posts and presented analytical ability. You have a biased view in the matter and cannot appear to distance yourself from it.

You also cannot seem to grasp the simple concept that my 1 month suggestion was merely that, a suggestion. In addition you continue to ignore my acknowledgement that a Government deemed period would be more appropriate.

I do not believe you can present yourself with objectivity nor possess the analytical ability necessary to effectively counter a logical argument. As such until presented with evidence to the contrary I will not answer any of your further posts - it would be fruitless.

Best for the future,
Coeus.

errrrmmmm yeah ok coeus please did you drink plenty of water to wash down that dictionary hun loool,
(sorry i just couldn't help myself) looooooool

teabelly

NMW isn't actually enough to live on. If you are on JSA you also get housing benefit, council tax benefit. Unless you are going to earn more than your rent, council tax, JSA and whatever else you get free eg dental care I'm not surprised people choose to live on benefits when living on benefits will give them a better living standard!

Some of those on benefits for years are the terminally thick/mentally unstable/ criminal. Do you really want them in your workplace anyway?

Finding work is harder the more qualified and the older you are. There are plenty of NMW numpty jobs but the decent jobs are much more scarce than they were. Mid career people are finding it much tougher due to ageism and ten a penny graduates. If you have a family and a reasonable mortgage to pay then NMW isn't enough. If you have mortgage protection insurance then you are better off not working! If you're 50+ then forget it altogether.

Anyone that has a work history isn't a skiver. Those that have never worked shouldn't be receiving any benefits at all. If you made parents financially responsible for their children until that child has had a steady job for a year then I'm sure that would put an end to the endemic benefits culture.

Coeus

cindy101 wrote: »

errrrmmmm yeah ok coeus please did you drink plenty of water to wash down that dictionary hun loool,
(sorry i just couldn't help myself) looooooool

Yeah apologies for that. My job requires that I present myself in an educated and confident manner. In a digital age it has become a force of habit to do the same in letters, emails, forums etc. I'm also forever correcting my Niece and Nephew on their use of English on Facebook. However that is mainly for my own amusement - they do not approve.

cavework

As an employer I would NOT agree to take someone on with no pay just to suit some JS requirement.
When I require staff, I advertise and the most suitable candidate gets the job. It would be very unfair on my other staff to have to inflict on them someone who does not really want the job and is being forced to attend work.
The attitude some have that all employers will jump in just to get free labour is completely stupid.

cindy101

cavework wrote: »

As an employer I would NOT agree to take someone on with no pay just to suit some JS requirement.
When I require staff, I advertise and the most suitable candidate gets the job. It would be very unfair on my other staff to have to inflict on them someone who does not really want the job and is being forced to attend work.
The attitude some have that all employers will jump in just to get free labour is completely stupid.

tell that to the supermarkets who are already ripping the a*se out of the scheme by taking on 100's of people a month,

you sound like a decent bloke and good on you for the way you go about hiring people i feel thats how it should be done , but lets not kid ourselves that it wont be abused because its already happening,

cavework

cindy101 wrote: »

tell that to the supermarkets who are already ripping the a*se out of the scheme by taking on 100's of people a month,

you sound like a decent bloke and good on you for the way you go about hiring people i feel thats how it should be done , but lets not kid ourselves that it wont be abused because its already happening,

I am female , but don't let on

Lightsout_2

patman99 wrote: »

First-off, you don't go back to stage 1 if you only sign off for a month. If you sign off the dole, then sign back on within 6 months it is counted as a 'continuation of claim'.
.

Like I said, dole lifers know the tricks. Others just parrot the official line and say 'its not possible'

cindy101

cavework wrote: »

I am female , but don't let on

Oppps sorry :rotfl::doh:

cindy101

Lightsout wrote: »

Like I said, dole lifers know the tricks. Others just parrot the official line and say 'its not possible'

so tell me how many dole lifer do you think we will have with this government doing deals with the likes of tescos to make 100's of people some of whom would work want to work and would be greatful for that job but still dont get it all they get is put back on the dole que,, i mean why pay a dole lifer £900.00 a month to do the job for real when governments handing them to um for nought....

donquine

If I lost my job and couldn't find another paid job within a few months, I would do voluntary work until I found something paid, as it would a) help with the boredom and b) keep my CV current whilst I was jobseeking. I think most people would have this train of thought?

I've not read the proposals in any detail, but I don't see anything wrong with the general principle of giving people a little push into doing what I've described above. Looking for a job in this current climate is hard, I don't think anyone would argue with that, but the longer you stay out of work doing nothing, the harder it gets.