Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ali smack

geologists angry over Iain Duncan Smith's Com

20 posts in this topic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/18/geologists-iain-duncan-smith-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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/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.

[/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.

[/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.

[/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.

[/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

[/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?

[/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

[/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.

[/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.

[/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.

[/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

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

because for far to long people have taken the mickey.

Who's taking the mickey?

[/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.

[/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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.