19 replies to this topic

[stevewinn]

ali smack, on 19 February 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

The High Court seem to think Duncan Smith is wrong. And I wouldn't describe University as a bubble world. She went there to get a job. And in all fairness was not her fault she couldn't get a job.


"she then decided to claim unemployment benefit for a number of weeks, after X amount of time the government said, Miss Reilly we have a placement for you, and so sent her to pound land. stacking shelves, customer service. not unpaid, because the conditions you accept at the point of claiming unemployment benefit is after X amount of time you'll be sent on a work place program. - so she wasnt working for nothing, she was working to meet her client agreement. and to continue to receive unemployment benefit."
Again no offence but you are wrong. I happen to be on JSA my self and it does not say anywhere in the agreement you are expected to work full time  for no money. Hence why she took the government to court. The High Court would not be in her favor if what they were doing is legal.
Also you are expected to look for jobs, and write them down in a book and go to A4E. You are not told when you sign on you have to work full time in a shop without receiving any wages.
She didn't decide to claim benefits, she had left university and had to because she didn't have a job. But more important is the fact she already had voluntary work in the musium which would of helped her get a job in her chosen career. And they took her off it.Which is inane.
I'm sorry but working in a shop stacking shelves and not getting £6 an hour for your graft is working for nothing. You have to ask yourself a simple question, would you work in a job if you wasn't getting paid a wage?Again The High Court have said the government is breaking the law and what there doing is illegal. So I don't see how anyone can argue with The High Court.

"is it really to much to ask for people to work for their benefit. or do people expect to just sit idle and get benefit for nothing."
No one is saying they should sit around and do nothing. 99/99 per cent don't. they look for work. But there's a recession and it's very difficult to get jobs.
There are many people that are redundant as well. And No they shouldn't be expected to work for there money, we don't want to live in America.
They should be expected to look for work and the government should provide work experience with extra money like they used to years ago on MBW.
They used to pay people £15 extra for work placements. I'm all for work experience if it is suited you and will help you get a job, but there's no point in putting someone in a placement that is unsuitable. Kind of reminds of the inbetweeners episode where they put will and the lanky guy in the wrong placements and there terrible. they need to put doleys in work experience that is suitable to them and pay them for there time there. that way it would be a great idea and help people into work.

"anyway the program worked because Miss Reilly is now employed, not as a geologist, but in retail/customer services in a supermarket. so proof if proof were needed. lets remember who was backing Miss Reilly. the Unions. the same unions who support and back the labour party. and now the picture becomes clear"
I can't see what unions or Labour have to do with this TBH. The poundland "Job" didn't help her and is nothing to do with her working in a supermarket, she's getting paid now, she wasn't before.


"as for the geologists who have taken offense to the reference made who cares".
I'm pretty certain that they do and there quite right. Ian Duncan Smith doesn't understand Joe Bloggs. I doubt he has ever worked stacking shelves or being on benefits. The only time he was on benefits was for a t.v. show which he quit. because he couldn't live on the money that was provided to

the Court actually agreed with the governments program, but not the frame work, as such once the new regulations have been approved the exact same program will continue.

as part of your job seeking allowance agreement you accept the terms. were it clearly states - if you refuse to go on a work placement or refuse a training offer. you will lose your benefit entitlement. the program kicks in if you have been claiming unemployment benefit for six months.

at no point did this lady work for nothing, she was working for her benefit. - in order to keep receiving the benefit - going on the job placement was part of the deal in order for her to meet her JSA agreement.

It is my belief if people want work they will work in any job. trouble is some people think certain jobs are beneath them. and this is were the problem starts, people need to see the bigger picture and plan ahead. most people are not even worth the minimum wage but expect to be paid £10 plus an hour. and turn their noses up. when we have 650,000 migrants coming over to do menial jobs - jobs which the natives refuse to do then something has gone horribly wrong. and it goes back to what i've just said.

We need a wholesale change of the benefit system. in order to receive Jobseeking allowance it should be the norm that you have to take a placement of work or training. in order to receive benefit it should not be the case you sign on benefit and then are left idle. doing nothing but, signing on, on a Thursday, getting you benefit on the Tuesday, and filling in a job log with fictitious entries. you know am closer to the truth. if anyone reaches the 6 months unemployed then something is wrong, one) they are not willing to adapt and change, IE career direction or two) refuse to learn a new skill.
adapt or be left on the sidelines, moaning about how unfair the government is, at least the government is trying, unlike labour, as was said on question time they, labour just wrote the cheque and walked away, at least the Tory government are asking questions. because for far to long people have taken the mickey. like i've said if your out of work for longer than 6 months then look in the mirror and ask the question why. anyone out of work longer than 5 years needs throwing off benefits altogether.

[Walter White]

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]
We need a wholesale change of the benefit system. in order to receive Jobseeking allowance it should be the norm that you have to take a placement of work or training.

I agree on the need for change but I disagree on the method.  

I'll start off with a caveat.  I'm no expert.  This is only a subject I throw about in my brain.

I've always thought that the benefit system should literally be a pay-in/pay-out system.  I've been employed ever since I left school (Trolley Boy - Night Shift Shelf Stacker - Stockroom Monkey - Sales Assistant - Shift Manager - Office Administrator).  Under my system I would have a benefit savings account which is topped up by the taxes I've paid over the years.  If I become unemployed I can then claim from that pot, for a time limited only by how much I have in it.  As soon as the well runs dry, that's it, the only way it can be replenished is by getting another job.

That's my idea anyway, if we could have a benefit system which works something along those lines, I'd be happy.  

And taking a long holiday through all the benefits I've accrued.

Edited by Walter White, 20 February 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[stevewinn]

Walter White, on 20 February 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

I agree on the need for change but I disagree on the method.  

I'll start off with a caveat.  I'm no expert.  This is only a subject I throw about in my brain.

I've always thought that the benefit system should literally be a pay-in/pay-out system.  I've been employed ever since I left school (Trolley Boy - Night Shift Shelf Stacker - Stockroom Monkey - Sales Assistant - Shift Manager - Office Administrator).  Under my system I would have a benefit savings account which is topped up by the taxes I've paid over the years.  If I become unemployed I can then claim from that pot, for a time limited only by how much I have in it.  As soon as the well runs dry, that's it, the only way it can be replenished is by getting another job.

That's my idea anyway, if we could have a benefit system which works something along those lines, I'd be happy.  

And taking a long holiday through all the benefits I've accrued.

its a good idea. the debate on benefits is a hard one, i know im going to get some flak from my post above, because there are so many variables. and thats the case with the job centre each person in a ideal world needs a tailor made job plan. in helping and understanding their situation. but even so it needs both parties pulling in the same direction for it to work.

[ali smack]

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

the Court actually agreed with the governments program, but not the frame work, as such once the new regulations have been approved the exact same program will continue.

The court still ruled what the government was doing was unlawful. So it doesn't make any difference whether they agreed or disagreed with the scheme. The fact is the government did something illegal and unlawful in the eyes of the law. Which is the point i'm trying to make. I don't think anyone is against the scheme in principle. I'm not against it in principle. Just the way it's being done.

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]



as part of your job seeking allowance agreement you accept the terms. were it clearly states - if you refuse to go on a work placement or refuse a training offer. you will lose your benefit entitlement. the program kicks in if you have been claiming unemployment benefit for six months.

I'm sorry but no offence this is wrong. You do not have to work for unpaid work after 6 months at all.
It was and is in "Pilot Mode" and isn't in most parts of the country. I believe it kicks in September.

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]



at no point did this lady work for nothing, she was working for her benefit. - in order to keep receiving the benefit - going on the job placement was part of the deal in order for her to meet her JSA agreement.

ah...But would you work 30 hours a week for no wages in a job that was no benefit to you?
and i'd say she was working for nothing. Poundland didn't pay her for her graft. Even if you class her benefits as her "Wages" She was being insanely under payed.
£6.19 Is minimum wage. She was working 30 hours a week and only getting £111 a fortnight. That is under payed. And doesn't match the 30 hours at all.

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]



It is my belief if people want work they will work in any job. trouble is some people think certain jobs are beneath them. and this is were the problem starts .

Not everyone is suitable for every job. For instance Chef, Eletrician, Plumber, Manager.Sometimes they need specific qualifications for certain jobs.
I do totally agree some people do think certain jobs are beneath them which is stupid. Especially in our current climate. There is hardly any jobs about. I always am applying for jobs and don't mind doing anything at all.
But in all fairness she wasn't poo-pooing Poundland. She had voluntary work that was helping her in her field. But they took her off it and made her work somewhere which wasn't going to help her and had no benefit to her.

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]



people need to see the bigger picture and plan ahead..

She was planning ahead but they took her off her voluntary work

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]


. most people are not even worth the minimum wage but expect to be paid £10 plus an hour. and turn their noses up.  

I think this a sweeping generalisation. Who are these most people? I think you''ll find hardly anyone is turning there noses up at jobs less than £10 an hour. Yes I agree there are some and those people are living in cloud cuckoo land. But there a small percentage compared to most who just want to work. I have found my time at A4E that majority do want work, and don't care about the wages as long as they are minimum wage. The fantasists who insist on £600 a week jobs are old and being stupid. There never young to be quite frank and also there's hardly anyone like that. I'm not sure how most people aren't worth the minimum wage? do you mean in or out of work?

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

when we have 650,000 migrants coming over to do menial jobs - jobs which the natives refuse to do then something has gone horribly wrong. and it goes back to what i've just said.

Some of these jobs you mention are almost always given to migrants because the companies  pay them less, and that is true. Like Cleaning in Clubs/Pubs. There are a variety of reasons why people may not do jobs. They may be given to migrants, they may be a few hours a week and would amount to as much or less than JSA, and in some cases people refuse them. Which I think is stupid. But most aren't refusing these jobs, they just can't get them. The problem is there's a terrible recession and because so many people are jobless and redundant there's not many jobs about, the jobs about many people are applying for same ones and there only picking most experiened. So your screwed if you don''t have much experience in work

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]


We need a wholesale change of the benefit system. in order to receive Jobseeking allowance it should be the norm that you have to take a placement of work or training. in order to receive benefit it should not be the case you sign on benefit and then are left idle.

I agree. I think everyone on the dole should be given training that is suitable and will get them a job. I also agree in work placements/experience, Again if you are payed for your time at the placement and it should be at weekends. It should also be something suitable. So for instance if you wan't to be a builder, give them training in being a builder and give them a placement at a builder firm. The Goverment have to do this instead of wasting money on schemes such as A4E which don't work.

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]
doing nothing but, signing on, on a Thursday, getting you benefit on the Tuesday, and filling in a job log with fictitious entries

This again is a sweeping generalisation and completely untrue.
Most "Dole Boys" and "Dole Girls" don't do this. They don't do nothing, they fill in there job logs with real jobs. Thanks to universal jobsmatch you can't fake jobs, because you have to apply online and they can see exactly when you signed into your account and what you've applied for.
You are referring to a tiny amount of people. Who are likely drug addicts and alcoholics. People who should be in rehab not on benefits.

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]
you know am closer to the truth. if anyone reaches the 6 months unemployed then something is wrong, one) they are not willing to adapt and change, IE career direction or two) refuse to learn a new skill.

I'm sorry but this isn't true at all. there are many people who have being unemployed for this amount of time and longer. It is nothing to do with not adapting and changing and i'm not sure what you mean by this? And they don't refuse to learn new skills in fact most are begging for new skills.
The fact is there's a terrible recession, millions unemployed, many redundant as shops closing. Not many jobs about, ones that are, either need a skill or qualification most people don;t have so can't get job, or others loads of people are applying for same one and employers are only getting most skilled because due to recession don't have enough moey to take them on.

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

, moaning about how unfair the government is, at least the government is trying, unlike labour, as was said on question time they, labour just wrote the cheque and walked away, at least the Tory government are asking questions.

the government are doing everything wrong and as much as I agree that labor made a c*** up of everything. these lot aren't helping at all. Asking Questions? Well there's a recession, the worst in 80odd years. There's the answer to why so many are unemployed. there's even soldiers and police being layed off

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]
because for far to long people have taken the mickey.

Who's taking the mickey?

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]
like i've said if your out of work for longer than 6 months then look in the mirror and ask the question why.

Maybe they can't get a job because there's hardly any jobs about and the ones they apply for, find better suited people.
there are many people out of work who want to work, such as uni graduates. are they be in there 50s or 60s. there likely not to be hired.

stevewinn, on 20 February 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]
anyone out of work longer than 5 years needs throwing off benefits altogether.

But then what are they going to do for food. You can't throw people of benefits after 5 years. It would cause crime

[stevewinn]

i wrote a long reply, and i hit the back button by accident and lost the lot, - jesus, im always doing that. - anyway keeping it short is 'New Deal' still in existence?

Edited by stevewinn, 22 February 2013 - 07:25 PM.