Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

geologists angry over Iain Duncan Smith's Com


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:33 PM

http://www.guardian....-shelf-stacking


"One of the oldest learned societies in the world has criticised Iain Duncan Smith for dismissing the worth of geologists while defending the government's back-to-work scheme.

The Geological Society of London, which represents more than 10,000 earth scientists, complained after the work and pensions secretary suggested shelf stackers were more valuable than geologists.

Duncan Smith told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show on Sunday that "smart people" who thought they were above supermarket work should ask themselves a simple question when they struggled to find products on their next shopping trip: "Who is more important, the geologist, or the person who stacked the shelves?"

He was speaking after Cait Reilly, a recent geology graduate from Birmingham University, won a legal case against the government over an unpaid work placement at the discount store Poundland. Duncan Smith added: "There is a group of people out there who think they're too good for this kind of stuff."

The comments irked the geologists' professional body, which was founded in 1807 as a dining club in a London pub. Professor Alan Lord, the society's secretary for foreign and external affairs, said: "It's an unhelpful way to have framed the argument.""

I think the geologists have every right to be angry with Mr. Duncan Smith. His comments were ignorant in the extreme.

I can't believe that he would come out in public with such an inane comment.But worse than that is the fact he is expecting Jobseekers to to do full time work for no pay. It is totally wrong and even the high court has said it is wrong. I am all for helping job seekers into work, and I am all for voluntary work and work experience, if it is benefiting the said person. Or if they are getting paid some extra money from the government, then I and millions of others wouldn't have a problem. But the fact he is expecting people to be forced against there will to do full time work and not get paid for it is wrong.He is saying if they don't do it. there benefits will be stopped. This is inane and not right at all.

And before anyone says that there benefits are classed as the wage. They aren't. Job seekers get £105 a fortnight if under 25, over 25s just get £142 a fortnight. So the work there expecting to do should give them at least an extra £30 A week.

I hate the fact we have rather ignorant people who lap up all this rubbish like the sheeple they are. Always believing everything and anything the media, and government tell them. They need to expand there brains and look around.

It is in my opinion wrong and I hope they either pay people for this forced unpaid work or



#2    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,772 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

Quote

He was speaking after Cait Reilly, a recent geology graduate from Birmingham University, won a legal case against the government over an unpaid work placement at the discount store Poundland. Duncan Smith added: "There is a group of people out there who think they're too good for this kind of stuff."
The comments irked the geologists' professional body


Ducan smith is right on the money. i've said the same on here. - as for Cait Reilly the graduate who wanted to be a geologist in the local museum found out, that once she left the bubble world of academia, there was no job's available for her chosen career. 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. - 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.

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.

as for the geologists who have taken offense to the reference made who cares.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#3    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,054 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:45 PM

Not sure on this one Steve. I agree to the whole concept of Jobseekers having to work for their Dole money, (same as Work fair? in USA), what does concern me is that the burden still seems to be on the Tax payer to pay the money. I would have thought it fairer that during this Work Placement that the Employer pays at least Minimum Wage, with Jobseekers Allowance being re-instated at the successful conclusion of this period - but still time - limited.

I dont know the full Ins and Outs of this case so I will have to post it as just IMO.


#4    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:15 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 19 February 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

Not sure on this one Steve. I agree to the whole concept of Jobseekers having to work for their Dole money, (same as Work fair? in USA), what does concern me is that the burden still seems to be on the Tax payer to pay the money. I would have thought it fairer that during this Work Placement that the Employer pays at least Minimum Wage, with Jobseekers Allowance being re-instated at the successful conclusion of this period - but still time - limited.

I dont know the full Ins and Outs of this case so I will have to post it as just IMO.
Why on earth should jobseekers work for there money without being paid? Let's be honest I doubt you'd work in a job for no money would you? So why should job seekers do it.It is slave labour. The High court has said it is illegal


#5    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:50 PM

View Poststevewinn, on 19 February 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

[/font][/color]

Ducan smith is right on the money. i've said the same on here. - as for Cait Reilly the graduate who wanted to be a geologist in the local museum found out, that once she left the bubble world of academia, there was no job's available for her chosen career
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 him.































#6    Essan

Essan

    Recruitment Agent for the 'B' Ark

  • Member
  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined:18 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The other side

  • Stop Climate Change: Plant a Rain Forest Today!

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:11 PM

As an amateur geologist, I'm hoping these guys have been misquoted out of context just as IDS was.

Otherwise they've shown themselves up to be very stupid and foolish.

Whilst geologists are obviously very useful and valuable, when it comes to putting the right tins on the right shelves, it doesn't matter if everyone in the shop of a professor of geology - what you need is a competent shelf stacker!  

Just as when your car breaks down, a car mechanic is just slightly more useful than a brain surgeon (or a geologist!)

The problem with IDS is that he's an intelligent man who genuinely cares and speaks sense - and the gutter press etc don't like that!

Edited by Essan, 19 February 2013 - 09:12 PM.

Andy

Weather & Earth Science News
The independent climate blog

#7    Essan

Essan

    Recruitment Agent for the 'B' Ark

  • Member
  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined:18 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The other side

  • Stop Climate Change: Plant a Rain Forest Today!

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:19 PM

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

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.

Who said anyone is?   However, if you;ve been claiming JSA for a period of time then you do get offered the chance of work experience to increase your chance of employment.   You get paid the same you were previously being paid to play computer games all day.  Those of us - UK taxpayers -  paying you think that seems perfectly reasonable!

Quote

She didn't decide to claim benefits

No, she was forced to do so at gunpoint ....... :unsure2:  

There is no obligation to claim benefits.   And she could have got, say, a job in a pub 2 nights a week which would have earned her just as much and meant she could devote as much of the rest of her time to voluntary work as she liked.

Don't be a sheeple and do what everyone else does 'because everyone else does'.  Think for yourself.

Andy

Weather & Earth Science News
The independent climate blog

#8    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,054 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:37 AM

View Postali smack, on 19 February 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Why on earth should jobseekers work for there money without being paid? Let's be honest I doubt you'd work in a job for no money would you? So why should job seekers do it.It is slave labour. The High court has said it is illegal

I dont think I explained my view very clearly (wouldn't be the first time :blush: )
If a person is on long term JSA then the State should have the right to ask that claimant to pay for the benefits by working an appropriate amount of time (JSA divided by Minimum Wage to establish the Hours to be worked) - the placement company then paying to the State the Minimum Wage X Hours worked + whatever Social Security Payments are due. So... i am guessing that someone receiving JSA would be required to work (for example) 10 hours per week to cover their payments from the State.

With the payments received from the Placement Company then the person receiving JSA becomes a "Neutral Financial Burden" on the State, and by extension, on the Taxpayer.

I fail to see what is not equitable in this type of scheme.

In this particular case however, I believe the Govt breached the "Anti Sweat Shop" laws, and were quite rightly taken to task.

Edited by keithisco, 20 February 2013 - 08:42 AM.


#9    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,083 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:18 AM

View Poststevewinn, on 19 February 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:



Ducan smith is right on the money. i've said the same on here. - as for Cait Reilly the graduate who wanted to be a geologist in the local museum found out, that once she left the bubble world of academia, there was no job's available for her chosen career. 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. - 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.

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.

as for the geologists who have taken offense to the reference made who cares.
and stacking cans of cheapo supermarket own brand junk in a crappo super market is a career, is it?
"People should be grateful for any 'job' they can get, however crappo", i expect people will say. Well, I'm afraid that by saying that, people are admitting that the Capitalist system thay they'd probably say they support (because they believe that it goes hand in hand with that other great ideal that people always pledge allegiance to, "Democracy") has failed utterly.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#10    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,386 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:59 AM

Universities are happy to take the student's money for a course of study they know full well there are far more graduates in than jobs available. What's the old joke -- "How do you get the anthropologist off your doorstep?"  Answer: "Pay for the pizza."


#11    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 10,495 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:04 PM

View PostEssan, on 19 February 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:



The problem with IDS is that he's an intelligent man who genuinely cares and speaks sense - and the gutter press etc don't like that!

If he genuinely cared he would not force people to ignore their doctors instructions in order to claim assistance.

'As a result of my taking up the case of my constituent Colin Trayner in a House of Commons adjournment debate, who was an epileptic since birth subject to grand mal seizures and who at the age of 29 was declared fit for work but died in a grand mal fit before his appeal could be heard, I have now received several more heart-rending messages about many others who have been similarly appallingly badly treated.'

'Mr. D had diabetes, heart condition, and lymphoedema.   The DWP made 3 appointments for him because he had major walking difficulties.   The DWP then agreed that he could complete the ESA form in his car, though he had asked the DWP officer to come out to complete the form, which was refused.   Mr. D died while completing the form.'

There's more instances of Mr Smith's caring here:
www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2012/10/the-atos-nightmare-gets-worse/


#12    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:32 PM

View PostEssan, on 19 February 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:






The problem with IDS is that he's an intelligent man who genuinely cares and speaks sense - and the gutter press etc don't like that!
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic.
IDS doesn't care or speak sense. Even a lot of members of his own party despise him for his absurd right wing views.
Forcing people to work for there benefits with out being payed wages is not caring or sensible.
Charging people extra money who live in 4 bedroom council houses, when there soldier son is away, or if there kids have moved out is not caring or sensible.
Making it impossible for anyone under the age of 35 to have there full housing benefit payed for is not caring or sensible.
I am not sure what he's done that is caring and sensible. Please show me an example?


#13    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:52 PM

View PostEssan, on 19 February 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

Who said anyone is?   However, if you;ve been claiming JSA for a period of time then you do get offered the chance of work experience to increase your chance of employment.  

No one is complaining about work experience, even the girl her self wasn't complaining about work experience. The problem was and is, that someone should not be forced to work for there benefits without a wage. Hell....Even The High Court have said it was slave labor. It really can't be justified.

View PostEssan, on 19 February 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

You get paid the same you were previously being paid to play computer games all day.  


Well this no offence is a myth created By The Sun and other newspapers. Job Seekers don't play computer games all day, they look for work. Well they have to look for work or they quite rightly won't receive benefits. And they are being payed by the government to look for work. It's not there fault there's no jobs about.

View PostEssan, on 19 February 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

  Those of us - UK taxpayers -  paying you think that seems perfectly reasonable!




I don't think this is true. I am quite sure a lot of tax payers are against the idea. Especially those which have recently being made redundant.
I fail to see how it is reasonable to make someone work 30 hours a week without paying them a wage.
If however they did pay them a wage, even 15 pounds extra, i'd be all for it. As i've said i'm not against job seekers partaking in work experience.
In fact I support the idea if it is suitable to the person and will help them get work....But they have to be payed for there efforts.
I'd also imagine a lot of workers are against it because it means there not getting jobs because job seekers are getting them

View PostEssan, on 19 February 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:





No, she was forced to do so at gunpoint ....... :unsure2:  

There is no obligation to claim benefits.   And she could have got, say, a job in a pub 2 nights a week which would have earned her just as much and meant she could devote as much of the rest of her time to voluntary work as she liked.

It is highly likely she couldn't find a job hence claiming benefits. Uni graduates don't go on the dole for fun. i'm an uni graduate myself and I can honestly say it's not fun at all.
And she had her voluntary work already so why take it off her?

View PostEssan, on 19 February 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:



Don't be a sheeple and do what everyone else does 'because everyone else does'.  Think for yourself.
No disrespect but I find this a bit silly. I am certainly not a sheeple at all.


#14    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:53 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 20 February 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

I dont think I explained my view very clearly (wouldn't be the first time :blush: )
If a person is on long term JSA then the State should have the right to ask that claimant to pay for the benefits by working an appropriate amount of time (JSA divided by Minimum Wage to establish the Hours to be worked) - the placement company then paying to the State the Minimum Wage X Hours worked + whatever Social Security Payments are due. So... i am guessing that someone receiving JSA would be required to work (for example) 10 hours per week to cover their payments from the State.

With the payments received from the Placement Company then the person receiving JSA becomes a "Neutral Financial Burden" on the State, and by extension, on the Taxpayer.

I fail to see what is not equitable in this type of scheme.

In this particular case however, I believe the Govt breached the "Anti Sweat Shop" laws, and were quite rightly taken to task.
JSA doesn't expect anyone to work 10 hours a week


#15    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 20 February 2013 - 02:39 PM

Clearly Marx was not wasting his time in England, as it seems now even the bourgeoisie admit the true worth of the proletariat :)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users