No point working - why not just go on benefits?

ILW

ninky wrote: »

lower than what? my OH only earns 9 pounds an hour, not that much higher than minimum wage. if minimum wage is protecting those on just less than that then which scale are you refering to?

It is generally accepted amongst employers and employees in the building trade, that rates for general unskilled labourers have been kept down by cheap immigrant labour. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion.

Regarding your OH, I would suspect the reason he is getting such a low rate for a skilled job is mainly down to an oversupply of labour, partly due to foreign workers.

timmmers

The_White_Horse wrote: »

can't the unemployed be made to sit in football stadiums all day in complete silence between 9-5 and then they can go home. they should not be allowed to lay in bed, watch jeremy kyle, go to the pub, hang out with their friends whilst i am working.

filthy dirty scum they are.

Come back when you lose your job, apparently that changes your entire personality and makes you scum ? Personally I don't think you have far to fall with that nasty attitude.

As for making the unemployed sit for hours in a jobseeking anvironment, google a company called Intraining who are paid by the DWP to run exactly that kind of scheme on the new deal system here, a fine way to hide the numbers of unemployed is ALL that is bcause people spending 6 months with them aren't jobseekers signing on anymore..in theory..and no longer sign on.

This scheme works like this;-
3 months going to their offices for 4 hours a week jobsearching, using their computers etc, and having hours and work applied for recorded and periodic inteviews with an advisor to iron out any "problems".
It is entirely possible to do this 3 months and end up without even a CV despite the "help" of the advisors (in great numbers there shuffling paper). I know this because i had to set up an email and cv for a mate who was desperate for a job and didnt have either after his 3 months with them. On that topic, the costs of running his 13 week stay must have run into 1000s but had the govt seen fit to fund or loan him the cost of a SIA renewal fee (security cert without which that job isn't possible) hed have been working from day one, cost £250. He saved the cash himsef and got a job straight away which is how i know.
Part two of the new deal period with these people involves work placements, 13 weeks of that too. Not placing people in work areas where they get a chance of a job or in their own field...cleaning canals alongside criminals on community service, sitting sorting charity clothes in shops for 30 hours a week, meaningless stuf unlikely to gain them work of training, this pays an extra 15 quid a week. A 4 hour period in the offices doing jobsearch in also part of it. As my mate pointed out, he wasn't a criminlnal, was being prevented from searching for jobs apart from the 4 hours (no pc or net at home ...can't afford them when youre broke. In total he spent 6 whole months wasting his time, broke, desperate for a job, all they did was get in his way. No training, no support, no advice (he didn't know he could get a budgeting loan to pay his licence for example until i told him which was too late..they should have maybe?).
How many REAL companies would gladly take on a guy for zero wages for 12 weeks 30 hours a week? How many of those guys could learn something, brush up skills they have, even end up staying there full time? The very least they would have relevant work to show on their CV and a reference.

The people on that new deal system had their drive beaten out of them, were hidden from the stats and nothing more. A great many of them too. it virtually ensured they stayed unemployed and lost touch with working routine. For the money it cost, most could have been sent on a refresher course in a real trade they had, or started a new one....and been paying it back as a loan or in their taxes ages ago.

The irony is that the staff at this dump are apparently in fear of their jobs going now because it's being closed down...an experiment with real people's lives that hasn't worked. Obviously never was going to work because if you want the best from humans you remember they ARE hUMANS, treat them with respect so they have some self respect, and use carrots not sticks to encourage rather than force.

Simple question, bearing in mind that there's going to be high unemployment for a while....which would you rather pay for, a man to loaf around for 6 months instead of working or seeking work 100% at the cost of about 20k, or investing a couple of thousand (high estimate) in retraining him over a period of 3 months or so and having him working paying tax ASAP?
The skills people have don't fit the skills in demand...so change the skills they have is the answer.

Sodding students get loans to waste years on nonsense degrees that will get them nowhere in life sometimes...in vast numbers too. Why not give the man who wants to work the same opportunity?

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

It is generally accepted amongst employers and employees in the building trade, that rates for general unskilled labourers have been kept down by cheap immigrant labour. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion.

Regarding your OH, I would suspect the reason he is getting such a low rate for a skilled job is mainly down to an oversupply of labour, partly due to foreign workers.

i'd say an undersupply of work is a bigger issue. the only time the company decided to cut back on overtime rates was when the recession hit.

tbh people just have to get over immigration it's a fact of life. we live in an ever globalised world. bring it on.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

i'd say an undersupply of work is a bigger issue. the only time the company decided to cut back on overtime rates was when the recession hit.

tbh people just have to get over immigration it's a fact of life. we live in an ever globalised world. bring it on.

I agree, but we just need to accept that low wages for workers in fields that can use low cost imported labour are here to stay. (Don't think I mentioned immigration and if I did it was a mistake.)

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

I agree, but we just need to accept that low wages for workers in fields that can use low cost imported labour are here to stay. (Don't think I mentioned immigration and if I did it was a mistake.)

assuming that imported labour will always be low cost could be a mistake. maybe for the forseeable future but as we know the future is not always forseeable.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

assuming that imported labour will always be low cost could be a mistake. maybe for the forseeable future but as we know the future is not always forseeable.

Bearing in mind that something like 3/4 of the world earn less than a tenth of what we do here, I cannot see much changing. It is good for some employers though.

nomoreboomandbust

ILW wrote: »

Bearing in mind that something like 3/4 of the world earn less than a tenth of what we do here, I cannot see much changing. It is good for some employers though.

But we also need to compare cost of living, hopefully this will put off a lot of economic migrants in the future. With a bit of luck the rest of the worlds wages increase whilst ours would appear to stagnate.

ninky_2

timmmers wrote: »

Simple question, bearing in mind that there's going to be high unemployment for a while....which would you rather pay for, a man to loaf around for 6 months instead of working or seeking work 100% at the cost of about 20k, or investing a couple of thousand (high estimate) in retraining him over a period of 3 months or so and having him working paying tax ASAP?
The skills people have don't fit the skills in demand...so change the skills they have is the answer.

training / retraining is the way to go you are right. unfortunately government cuts have seen a lot of FE / adult education courses cut. my OH was doing a welding course that actually got him a job. he wanted to go on to do some more specialised training / codings (stainless steel) but the course was completely closed down due cut in funding. and this is in london.

that said i think retraining is great for the majority of claimants who just need help getting back into the jobs market. for the 22 percent who have decided longterm benefits are a good idea i think you do need the to make them attend one of those patronising job clubs for several hours a day. so i'd say offer retraining and if it's refused it's the patronising jobclub.

Jimmy_31

SD-253 wrote: »

What are you talking about they are always going to set a maximum savings after which you don't get dole? Surely you realise that? AND that if they didn't the "posh thick t*at who went to a posh school" mates would be the beneficaries??????

So why hasnt the maximum savings limit been raised ? How long as it been set at 16k ? Why didnt the limit change in the budget ?

ninky_2

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

So why hasnt the maximum savings limit been raised ? How long as it been set at 16k ? Why didnt the limit change in the budget ?

if you are so bothered you could always go and put it all on the grand national.

benefits should not go to those with means to support themselves.