please help what am i entitled to IM PREGNANT AND UNEMPLOYED!!

kerrypn

Firefox1975 wrote: »

Other half goes and gets a job. ok that was easy, problem solved, next...........

(if anyone replies saying "There are no jobs" i will hunt you down and kill you...........)

peace.

:rotfl:

But Firefox...really...there are no....

((runs away to hide))

marybelle01

kerrypn wrote: »

:rotfl:

But Firefox...really...there are no....

((runs away to hide))

But that's not entirely true either. It can't be because I've read too many times on here that unemployment is caused by "foreigners coming over here and taking our jobs" - and to "take our jobs" there must be jobs to take. I accept that unemployment is bad now, but there are jobs and people keep on getting jobs regardless. What is the problem is that some people don't want a lot of the jobs that are there, and would prefer to claim benefits than do the jobs they don't want. And that just isn't sustainable. A benefits system that rewards people who stay out of work and have more children whilst they cannot support their own family is counter-intuitive. Speaking personally I would rather the money be spent on in-work benefits than out of work benefits. Yes, there are arguments about why taxpayers should subsidise employers in paying low wages, but I think this can be addressed (maybe by a NMW on a sliding scale that is tied to company profits?), but surely the primary aim should be to get people off unemployment benefits. The vast majority of unemployed people want to work, but if we want change we need to think about the generations of some families now who have never worked and will never work. I regularly meet children who have nobody working in their family, extended family, or amongst their friends. I meet adults who have never even known somebody who has worked.

Firefox1975

Bring in food vouchers and forced shared housing.

yes its embarrasing but it keeps people alive and i cannot think of a better incentive to get people back to work.

The government has actually now realised that there is a huge rift between the NMW and what people can potentially claim on benefits.:T

Good, i'm glad, all scroungers please get back to work.

And please don't reply with the "I've paid taxes all my life and now im unemployed i deserve something back" that's just crap, Your tax has gone and been absorbed by the state, it isn't a bloody savings plan.

kerrypn

marybelle01 wrote: »

But that's not entirely true either.

I know I was only kidding, if people are prepared to do ANYTHING there are definitely jobs. Was just taking Firefox's bait

dandelionclock30

The argument that there are jobs but people dont want to do them I think is totally dead in the water really. There are around 100 NMW advertised jobs for my city each week on the Direct Gov website and there are around 24,745 signing on as unemployed!.
If there were enough NMW jobs then all the unemployed would be doing them because your not allowed to turn down a job just because its NMW.Also those providers and jobcentres are under pressure to get unemployed people back into work.
There are not a lot of NMW jobs out there and the ones that there are get taken.
If there were enough jobs then a person would be slotted into a suitable vacancy by the jobcentre.
Even the Jobcentre has said that there are hardly any jobs etc.
The argument that there are jobs but people dont want to do them is just Government Rhetoric really and lazy thinking when the evidence shows otherwize.

marybelle01

Firefox1975 wrote: »

Bring in food vouchers and forced shared housing.

yes its embarrasing but it keeps people alive and i cannot think of a better incentive to get people back to work..

We tried that. They were called workhouses and they didn't work. And that was in the days before benefits. What the workhouses gave rise to was generations of stigmatised families who were considered unemployable because of the taint of the workhouse. Surely it isn't beyond the wit of a so-called civilised country to be able to find ways of making work pay instead of making unemployment pay, without resorting to humilation / punishment and the mistakes of the past? Remember, there are a lot of very genuine and honest people who are out of work and desperately trying to get back in to work who will do whatever it takes to do so. They are not all scroungers and the majority aren't. A single solution is never going to be the answer.

Firefox1975

Nevertheless it is a FACT that people who have the desire to work and want to work and do not consider any job demeaning end up with a job!

They have to work at it - rather than being lazy!

marybelle01

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

The argument that there are jobs but people dont want to do them I think is dead in the water really. There are around 100 NMW advertised jobs for my city each week on the Direct Gov website and there are around 24,745 signing on as unemployed!.
If there were enough NMW jobs then all the unemployed would be doing them because your not allowed to turn down a job just because its NMW.Also those providers and jobcentres are under pressure to get unemployed people back into work.
There are not a lot of NMW jobs out there and the ones that there are get taken.

I didn't say there were enough jobs - I said there are jobs and that many people don't want to do them. And if you need any evidence of that, read some of the threads on here. We see plenty of "the JC is making me go to this interview and I don't want the job, how do I get out of it?" with advice ranging from turn up in scruffy clothes to how to totally fail the interview. That is the sort of attitude that annoys people. I am utterly happy to give people the right not to work, or not to work at something they don't want to do, provided that they are happy with the right not to claim benefits for being deliberately out of work.

Firefox1975

marybelle01 wrote: »

We tried that. They were called workhouses and they didn't work. And that was in the days before benefits. What the workhouses gave rise to was generations of stigmatised families who were considered unemployable because of the taint of the workhouse. Surely it isn't beyond the wit of a so-called civilised country to be able to find ways of making work pay instead of making unemployment pay, without resorting to humilation / punishment and the mistakes of the past? Remember, there are a lot of very genuine and honest people who are out of work and desperately trying to get back in to work who will do whatever it takes to do so. They are not all scroungers and the majority aren't. A single solution is never going to be the answer.

They did work Marybelle. They were the foundation for invention within the Victorian Era. I'm afraid the Stigma was more attached to Victorian society as a whole as there really was a massive class divide in the 19th Century.

Im not trying to humiliate, we (the govt, country) must do everything we can to assist people back into work - if that involves hard sanctions then it involves hard sanctions.

people will not like it because it is a break from what they are "accustomed" to. Hard luck - times change.:(

Firefox1975

marybelle01 wrote: »

I didn't say there were enough jobs - I said there are jobs and that many people don't want to do them. And if you need any evidence of that, read some of the threads on here. We see plenty of "the JC is making me go to this interview and I don't want the job, how do I get out of it?" with advice ranging from turn up in scruffy clothes to how to totally fail the interview. That is the sort of attitude that annoys people. I am utterly happy to give people the right not to work, or not to work at something they don't want to do, provided that they are happy with the right not to claim benefits for being deliberately out of work.

i like this!;)