35 hours a week for Jobsearch, not possible?

sniggings

Denning. wrote: »

It is quite clearly policy to use a stick rather than a carrot to get people into work. I would bet most people support such measures. It is odd that a certain type of people are fixated on 'only doing 35 hours, no more, any more is slavery, disgusting'.

if you start with the premise all/most people without a job are not wanting to work then I would agree, but as i don't start with that premise...yep you guessed it I don't agree.

maybe open your mind a little and consider if the Tories really wanted to save some money, then there are beter ways to save £5 billion, half the foreign aid to £5 billion, still a lot of money and much more than many countries give, scrap one nuclear weapon, would still leave us with loads, set rent controls so the tax payer doesn't have to support those in work with 23 billion in housing benefit, make those employers that can affort to pay a living wage do so, so the tax payer is not paying 50 billion in working benefits...I could go on but I think I've made my point.

donnajunkie

prowla wrote: »

I would've said so, and therefore it should be very easy to tot up 35 hours.

well you can certainly fill upto 16 hours yourself with training. its only ok to do more hours than that if they send you on one of their courses.

donnajunkie

sniggings wrote: »

I am not sure if you are unemployed atm but you seem to be quoting stuff as fact and getting it wrong...you have to apply for all jobs you are capable of doing, they do not qualify that in any way by saying "if you know about it" etc they also include in many agreements you have to search direct gov site and indeed site and monster sites, that is in my agreement and I was told it's a standard agreemnt they make all JSA people sign in my office, so from them 3 sites, if I were to miss one job they think I should have applied for they can sanction me.

The way the system is set up atm is disgusting and the Tories after this will be lucky if they ever get back in power again.

they do not expect people to apply for every single job out there. they cant claim you have seen every job out there. so anyone clued up who has someone supporting them that is also clued up would beat a sanction easily. the first thing you would ask at an appeal is how can i be expected to apply for a job i dont know about. the most relevant things to adhere to are the things you agree to that are specific to you in your jsa agreement. not long ago before they got tougher you legally only had to do 3 actions per week.

donnajunkie

stix62 wrote: »

By the same reasoning then, the 35 hrs should be reduced to under 16 :think:

going to a job interview would be classed as part of the required activity that can fill the 35 hours.

donnajunkie

Denning. wrote: »

It is quite clearly policy to use a stick rather than a carrot to get people into work. I would bet most people support such measures. It is odd that a certain type of people are fixated on 'only doing 35 hours, no more, any more is slavery, disgusting'.

but these type of schemes have existed since the start of new deal well over 10 years ago. even longer than that if you include the yts in the 80's. if they are the answer how come we still have unemployment?

Denning.

donnajunkie wrote: »

but these type of schemes have existed since the start of new deal well over 10 years ago. even longer than that if you include the yts in the 80's. if they are the answer how come we still have unemployment?

There is always going to be unemployment.

The people who are unemployable should be given a stipend and that is it. Stop wasting money and time on them when they just won't or can't work.

donnajunkie

Denning. wrote: »

There is always going to be unemployment.

The people who are unemployable should be given a stipend and that is it. Stop wasting money and time on them when they just won't or can't work.

and you think something that means spending more money is stopping you from wasting money.
back to my original point which was you think this works, the evidence says otherwise.

stix62

Denning. wrote: »

There is always going to be unemployment.
...

The govt wouldn't want it any other way. If there was no unemployment they'd be stuck for back-handed money making schemes

sniggings

stix62 wrote: »

The govt wouldn't want it any other way. If there was no unemployment they'd be stuck for back-handed money making schemes

exactly, the truth is the government want unemployed figures high as it means cheap labour, why do you think they let immigration get out of control, do you think they believed it would raise wages? no they knew it would lower them, which was the aim, same with the unemployed, if you have low numbers out of work, it raises wages, which in turn raises product costs, which rasies inflation. it's cheaper to have 2.5 million out of work than high inflation...£5 billion on the unemployed is pennies compared to what full employment would cost the country.

People that think the unemployed are a problem are daft, £5 billion can be saved tomorrow, the way this government talk about the unemployed you would think it was £500 billion not £5, the labour tax on bankers bonuses bought in over 2 billion alone, and that was just a tax, on a few bankers bonuses.

Worrying about the unemployed is like a house wife worrying about the extra 1p on a pint of milk and the same time paying Gordon Ramsey to cook the evening meal.

stix62

'the truth is the government want unemployed figures high as it means cheap labour, why do you think they let immigration get out of control, do you think they believed it would raise wages? no they knew it would lower them'

Haha, don't I know it.

Last year I was taken on in a local factory to learn to set up and run an industrial sized cnc routing machine (after going for an admin interview ). I'd guess 75% of the workforce was polish.
Most of my working life has been setting cnc press brakes and for doing what I'd consider the same semi skilled job I used to do they were on less money than I was on 16 years ago! £7 per hour they were on.
I was being trained by a polish lad (decent enough lad though a bit 2 faced) but I couldn't help but point out how they were being ripped off wage-wise. He wasn't bothered in the slightest. His attitude was ' if I don't do it they have a list of another few hundred Polish people who will.' There were health and safety issues regarding protection on the machine we were working on (safety curtains cut off!!) and they didn't want to know. A shrug of the shoulders and..'so?'
I seriously think I'm not there now because I was seen as threat to the polish workers. It was on there say as to how I was progressing with my training which was farcical to say the least. Talk about language barriers, jees, I couldn't understand half of what they were saying. I've never felt so foreign in my own country