Work for benefits?

jamespir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

People in employment pay for those on welfare to not work.

We can't refuse to pay the taxes forcibly taken form us to support the f eckless, and if we do we can end up jailed.

Whereas nobody is forcing you to work. You can always choose not to work for your benefits by choosing to give up those benefits.

no need to direct it at me im not unemployed

Graham_Devon

jamespir wrote: »

sorry dont be a clot if they can provide say 20 hours for some one on benefits to do slave labour(and thats what it is ) why can they not give that person the same job but pay them nmw

Because this is about work experience. It's also about trying out a potential employee for the company. No company is going to risk taking someone on with no work ethic and no work experience, so your idea isn't going to work, and again has very little thought behind it. Companies need insurance if they are going to undertake inviting these people into their business. That insurance is the ability to let them go without any issues further down the line.

This gives that experience, with the high possibility of a job at the end of it.

the reason because their is no jobs and companies are just getting free staff and profitering from it where as six months down the line the unemployed person will still be in the same boat

If you had ever been involved in such a scheme you would know it's not free staff. There are costs inolved for the companies. The company will have to release a paid member of staff to train the person on work experience. The company will have to release someone to monitor that person. The company will have to pay someone to be involved in writing up the reports on that person. The company will be paying someone solely to run this system.

Again, no thought.

and the tory idiots can fiddle their statistic's like they did their expenses

Yet it was mostly labour politicians who ended up at her majesty's pleasure for expense fiddling. Again..... (do I need to say it?)

jamespir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because this is about work experience. It's also about trying out a potential employee for the company. No company is going to risk taking someone on with no work ethic and no work experience, so your idea isn't going to work, and again has very little thought behind it.
no its getting some one for free so you dont have to pay them and gaining profit from their work thats why tesco pulled out plus the fact theyve been doing that every day since the year dot why change now
This gives that experience, with the high possibility of a job at the end of it.

If you had ever been involved in such a scheme you would know it's not free staff. There are costs inolved for the companies. The company will have to release a paid member of staff to train the person on work experience. The company will have to release someone to monitor that person. The company will have to pay someone to be involved in writing up the reports on that person.

Again, no thought.

Yet it was mostly labour politicians who ended up at her majesty's pleasure for expense fiddling. Again..... (do I need to say it?) well as a tory suppoter you would say that

and do you think a scheme where you force people to lose their jobs to employ someone that you dont pay is right its all wrong
they(mp's) are all as bad as each other

Graham_Devon

You've taken absolutely no notice of anything I have said, have you?

Just dismissed me as a tory supporter (voted lib dem) for stating an absolute fact surroundning the expenses scandal and dismissed all that stuff about overheads of the workfare employee and told me I'm wrong. I'd like to know how I'm wrong, but I assume you'd simply dismiss that too.

Jolly good show.

jamespir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You've taken absolutely no notice of anything I have said, have you?

Just dismissed me as a tory supporter (voted lib dem) for stating an absolute fact surroundning the expenses scandal and dismissed all that stuff about overheads of the workfare employee and told me I'm wrong. I'd like to know how I'm wrong, but I assume you'd simply dismiss that too.

Jolly good show.

they have overheads anyway and if they have jobs going then interview people properly and employ the best

dont do it the sneaky way and exploit people

Mrs_Bones

What about the people like Tesco staff who are having their hours cut, losing any chance of overtime and in some cases even losing their jobs?

Why should they be penalized by these work programs because the firms they work for except a free labour subsidy from the government. Don't they have any rights?

A shelf needs stacking fair enough, for a business, someone they can get to do it for free is always going to appeal to their profit margin more than someone they have to pay a wage too. The shelf doesn't need stacking twice so the person being paid a wage loses out.

jamespir

Mrs_Bones wrote: »

What about the people like Tesco staff who are having their hours cut, losing any chance of overtime and in some cases even losing their jobs?

Why should they be penalized by these work programs because the firms they work for except a free labour subsidy from the government. Don't they have any rights?

A shelf needs stacking fair enough, for a business, someone they can get to do it for free is always going to appeal to their profit margin more than someone they have to pay a wage too. The shelf doesn't need stacking twice so the person being paid a wage loses out.

totaly agree but those in support never think of them as long as they fell secure in their job they dont give a monkies about those less fortuante except when they feel they should decide who gets benefits or not like its their god given right when it so bloody isnt

Fella

shortchanged wrote: »

....I don't see why corporate giants etc who already make huge profits should get dirt cheap labour and dress it up as work experience.

With respect "Corporate Giants etc who already make huge profits" is a nonsense term. It's the politics of envy.

There's a simple way this can be proved, regardless of any political viewpoint: If these "Corporate Giants etc who already make huge profits" actually existed, everyone would invest in them & be rich. There is nothing whatsoever preventing any of us buying shares in any of these apparently endlessly evil & profit-making companies.

However the reality is that "Corporate Giants etc who already make huge profits" is a nonsense expression because no such thing exists. What does exist are Corporate Giants who may make huge profits (let's say HSBC) or who may make losses so huge the Company needs to be effectively bought by the taxpayer just to carry on existing - with the shareholders losing almost everything (let's say RBOS).

Be honest - would you have made much of a distinction between HCBC & RBOS 5 years ago? Or would you have simply thought of both of them as "Corporate Giants etc who already make huge profits"?

Shareholders, whether they be millionaires, pension funds, or joe bloggs, risk a 100% loss of everything they invest, every time they invest. If the company goes on to make huge profits that's GOOD news. Good for them, good for their employees, good for their shareholders which probably includes the pension funds we're all relying on and very good for the taxpayer via a nice big chunk of Corporation Tax into the Govt coffers.

There is a very damaging culture of slagging off big successful companies just now in this country. It was started by Labour & their Union buddies, desparate to point some blame at anyone but themselves & it's gathering momentum mainly due to the fact that lots of people are hurting & most of them are too stupid to understand why.

High time a few people woke up, grew up, and realised that one of the few ways the UK might just haul itself out of the cack is if corporate giants somehow manage to make even huger profits - leading to more employment, higher tax revenues, and bigger pension pots.

Graham_Devon

jamespir wrote: »

they have overheads anyway and if they have jobs going then interview people properly and employ the best

dont do it the sneaky way and exploit people

Will you get a grip.

I'm answering every single one of your points here but you simply won't allow yourself to listen.

Tesco don't have jobs for these sorts of positions. These jobs would best be described as temping jobs. Around christmas temping jobs come along, but they involve more than these workfare placements do.

If you honestly think large companies are not advertising jobs and can cover their constant workload stream by taking on unreliable people who can walk out of the door at any point they choose, and await the next person to be sent to them under an unknown schedule then I don't know what to say to you. I am honestly lost for words to try and explain anything any further. You simply don't seem to comprehend how Tesco's have become so succesful. Timing, reliability and punctuality is EVERYTHING to this business. From ordering of stock to to haulage of goods to ordering the right goods for the weather the next day and getting them on the shelves before 6am the following day. No point having all that set in motion and hope to have a workfare candidate sent to you to get the goods on the shelves.

If you believe exploiting people is giving them a chance to get some work experience, maybe get a job at the end of it (46% have), then again, I don't know what to say to you.

Carry on being offended on behalf of other people. You'll get your way, and stop anyone having a chance of turning their lives around. Keep them sat at home being drip fed peanuts each week and remove these opportunities some may find extremely beneficial. That's FAR better, isnt it?

jamespir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Will you get a grip.

I'm answering every single one of your points here but you simply won't allow yourself to listen.

Tesco don't have jobs for these sorts of positions. These jobs would best be described as temping jobs. Around christmas temping jobs come along, but they involve more than these workfare placements do.

If you honestly think large companies are not advertising jobs and can cover their constant workload stream by taking on unreliable people who can walk out of the door at any point they choose, and await the next person to be sent to them under an unknown schedule then I don't know what to say to you. I am honestly lost for words to try and explain anything any further.

If you believe exploiting people is giving them a chance to get some work experience, maybe get a job at the end of it (46% have), then again, I don't know what to say to you.

Carry on being offended on behalf of other people. You'll get your way, and stop anyone having a chance of turning their lives around. Keep them sat at home being drip fed peanuts each week and remove these opportunities some may find extremely beneficial. That's FAR better, isnt it?

i dont think anyone should be sat at home doing nothing

but i think they should be paid a fair days pay for a fair days work
and whats they point in forcing them into to work experience if their isnt a job for them to have after