MSE News: George Osborne to make £10bn welfare cuts

Ellejmorgan

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I read that as a response to the poster who was trying to make out that she was wasn't biased in her comments as she didn't claim DLA. However, she negated to say that she was trying to claim DLA. So I assume the ROTFL was because the poster had been caught out.

How did I, I'm trying to get an award, there's no secret in that..

I said I didn't get DLA, which I don't, how does that justify nit picking...
I never said I wasn't trying to get it, I said I don't get it which is the truth...

Morlock

flexrider wrote: »

Being a ex employee for o2 and voda I know they hire by heroTsc recruitment consulting which in technical language a agency so who can you sack when you hire ten bob employment on temp basis

The government is trying to relinquish the employment rights of workers, effectively making 'normal' jobs less secure than even an employment agency:

"George Osborne revived controversial plans to dilute employees' rights by announcing that workers will be offered shares in their companies in return for giving up their legal rights at work.

From April next year, companies will be able to offer existing staff between £2,000 and £50,000 in tax-free shares if they surrender their rights to claim unfair dismissal, to redundancy pay, to request flexible working and time off for training. Women on maternity leave would have to give 16 weeks' notice of returning to work, rather than eight weeks as at present."

"New firms could make such contracts compulsory. People working for existing firms could not be forced to sign them – but new recruits could be made to, under legislation to be rushed through Parliament. Workers who gave up their employment rights would not be able to change their minds and exercise them in future unless their employer agreed."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/osbornes-new-jobs-offer-give-up-your-workplace-rights-8202947.html

krisskross

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

How did I, I'm trying to get an award, there's no secret in that..

I said I didn't get DLA, which I don't, how does that justify nit picking...
I never said I wasn't trying to get it, I said I don't get it which is the truth...

It's greed though isn't it?

You already receive loads of money for you and 3 children. Over £1000 a month cash in your hand plus housing costs. Plus of course any maintenance their father pays.

You need to leave something in the pot for someone else.

flexrider

Morlock wrote: »

The government is trying to relinquish the employment rights of workers, effectively making 'normal' jobs less secure than even an employment agency:

"George Osborne revived controversial plans to dilute employees' rights by announcing that workers will be offered shares in their companies in return for giving up their legal rights at work.

From April next year, companies will be able to offer existing staff between £2,000 and £50,000 in tax-free shares if they surrender their rights to claim unfair dismissal, to redundancy pay, to request flexible working and time off for training. Women on maternity leave would have to give 16 weeks' notice of returning to work, rather than eight weeks as at present."

"New firms could make such contracts compulsory. People working for existing firms could not be forced to sign them – but new recruits could be made to, under legislation to be rushed through Parliament. Workers who gave up their employment rights would not be able to change their minds and exercise them in future unless their employer agreed."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/osbornes-new-jobs-offer-give-up-your-workplace-rights-8202947.html

Beleive they already do this it called workfare :rotfl:

But no either substance can constitutes peoples human rights of law employment as ive said before and as a employer in my own business and whats beemn drummed into me what you put in u get out for doing so

Can see alot of unfair redundancy pushing the welfare bill up further seems the plan a is just shooting at a barrel of fish

.......watch this space

Ellejmorgan

krisskross wrote: »

It's greed though isn't it?

You already receive loads of money for you and 3 children. Over £1000 a month cash in your hand plus housing costs. Plus of course any maintenance their father pays.

You need to leave something in the pot for someone else.

Where does it say I get maintainance ???

More assumptions..

You and yours get the same amount of money, there's four of us, and before you start for the 100th time I have worked too...

How about you leave some in the pot for others too instead of having a go at me...

krisskross

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

Where does it say I get maintainance ???

More assumptions..

You and yours get the same amount of money, there's four of us, and before you start for the 100th time I have worked too...

How about you leave some in the pot for others too instead of having a go at me...

I thought the children all had the same father so certainly he should be paying something towards them.

I get the princely sum of £261 a month out of "the pot" after 40+ years work. Most of my income is from a pension I paid for over a few decades. Less income tax of course.

You say you have worked, maybe you have but you certainly appear to have no intention of trying it again.

Dunroamin

Anny wrote: »

Why are you ROTFL because someone applied for and was turned down for DLA?

If someone gets all self righteous and says "I don't get DLA" when the only reason they don't is because it's been refused, don't you find that ironic?

Dunroamin

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

Where does it say I get maintainance ???

More assumptions..

..

I think it's a reasonable assumption that a divorced woman receives maintenance for her children, don't you? I know that many people have picked wrong 'uns but that doesn't mean that we should assume that everybody has.

Ellejmorgan

Dunroamin wrote: »

If someone gets all self righteous and says "I don't get DLA" when the only reason they don't is because it's been refused, don't you find that ironic?

Actually that's not correct, I've stated that for the past year, I only made the claim in September..

I got refused as someone else filled it in and I didn't wait for the supporting evidence like I should have..

Ellejmorgan

Dunroamin wrote: »

I think it's a reasonable assumption that a divorced woman receives maintenance for her children, don't you? I know that many people have picked wrong 'uns but that doesn't mean that we should assume that everybody has.

I don't think it's a reasonable assumption at all..
So many people are fighting to get payments...