Question Time

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Who funded her appeal. That would be interesting.

I guess it was the DWP (us) don't the losers have to pay normally? although I assume legal aid was behind your question?

MacMickster

I too deplore the attitude of the panellists on Question Time.

There is no shame whatsoever in working in any minimum wage job. The shame is in those who should be able to easily get such a job (even if only as a stop gap whilst searching for their preferred employment) but choose not to do so.

A well educated and presentable young person should have little trouble in finding at least part-time work, which voluntary work could then fit around. Instead, some see no shame in claiming benefits, whilst waiting to eventually step into dead man's shoes at the one employer that they consider worthy of their talent.

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

I guess it was the DWP (us) don't the losers have to pay normally? although I assume legal aid was behind your question?

Found them.

http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=200

Fella

I've stopped watching Question Time. Generally vile & pig-thick panellists who all aspire to getting some cheap applause by slagging off bankers. And an audience with a collective IQ of about 50. Depressing stuff.

moneyinmypocket

Just watched it - they really slagged off pound land workers - as I have said before honest day work, the works is made up of all different people doing different things we should all respect those who try to do the right thing

chewmylegoff

The fact that the govt can't get its ducks in a row is more concerning than anything else here. I also have a problem with the role the courts have played in this. Clearly the govt intention was that people should be required to participate or lose their benefits.

A failure to implement the policy can only mean the govt is fundamentally incompetent, the courts are unfit for purpose, or most likely, both.

Masomnia

Fella wrote: »

I've stopped watching Question Time. Generally vile & pig-thick panellists who all aspire to getting some cheap applause by slagging off bankers. And an audience with a collective IQ of about 50. Depressing stuff.

http://youtu.be/p3tUqRBiMVo

(I've stopped watching it too, for the same reasons.)

BobQ

MacMickster wrote: »

There is no shame whatsoever in working in any minimum wage job. The shame is in those who should be able to easily get such a job (even if only as a stop gap whilst searching for their preferred employment) but choose not to do so.

.

Surely the point in this case is that it was not a job. It was a placement with an employer under a programme that at best is intended to enable the person to demonstrate timekeeping and the ability to undertake unskilled work and at worst is a punishment fot failing to get a job previously. If it were a job it would pay the NMW in return for the unskilled work performed.

I agree its wrong to belittle any work or those that do it. But there is an old (biblical) saying that "the labourer is always worthy of their hire". While I know there are people in this country who think there should be no minimum wage, all the time there is, I cannot accept that working for less that the NMW (ie for your benefits) is acceptable. People should only do this on a voluntary basis because they see some value in the opportunity.

That said I have no problem with someone who is showing no interest in getting work or being too selective in what they will consider being required to take temporary work at the NMW to demonstrate their employability and to incentivise their search for work if this is the objective of the work programme.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

Surely the point in this case is that it was not a job. It was a placement with an employer under a programme that at best is intended to enable the person to demonstrate timekeeping and the ability to undertake unskilled work and at worst is a punishment fot failing to get a job previously. If it were a job it would pay the NMW in return for the unskilled work performed.

I agree its wrong to belittle any work or those that do it. But there is an old (biblical) saying that "the labourer is always worthy of their hire". While I know there are people in this country who think there should be no minimum wage, all the time there is, I cannot accept that working for less that the NMW (ie for your benefits) is acceptable. People should only do this on a voluntary basis because they see some value in the opportunity.

That said I have no problem with someone who is showing no interest in getting work or being too selective in what they will consider being required to take temporary work at the NMW to demonstrate their employability and to incentivise their search for work if this is the objective of the work programme.

No, the point was that the guidance to be given to people that are required to do some work experience should be different. That was what the court ruled.

The point of the policy is 2 fold IMHO: to make is less attractive to sit on benefits and to give people something to put on their CV so they can get a job. The latter seems to have worked in this instance as the woman got some work experience in retail and now has the start of a career in retail.

Masomnia

Generali wrote: »

No, the point was that the guidance to be given to people that are required to do some work experience should be different. That was what the court ruled.

The point of the policy is 2 fold IMHO: to make is less attractive to sit on benefits and to give people something to put on their CV so they can get a job. The latter seems to have worked in this instance as the woman got some work experience in retail and now has the start of a career in retail.

It also roots out the claimants who are working on the side cash in hand.