This countries unemployment policy is simply not working.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:24 pm

There are times when contentious political issues become starkly simple for a person. I have had just such a moment this morning.

The brutal fact is that there are people receiving benefits for not working while there is work that goes undone. I am talking about the state of the roads. Pot holes and poor surfaces. Tatter verges and flooding where they need not be flooding. Why the hell do we have a system that sees taxes used to pay people who have no work while work that should be paid for by taxes is not done because of lack of money?

If a single unemployed person costs the public purse about £8800 in combined benefits over the year for which they do nothing why not increase the payment from the public purse by £4100 to make minimum wage and have them repair and upgrade roads. Or have the unemployed person put in 27 hours for the £8800 they are getting anyway?

If instead of seeing the unemployed as a problem to be solved we started seeing them as a resource that simple needs a little extra money to utilize we could change our whole way of functioning.

I know there will be people saying that road repair requires highly paid skilled operatives - its not a simply job, because they way its done at the moment does utilize technical machinery etc but if we stop and think about it roads can be built and maintained with simple tools and labour - they were for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yes it takes longer, and costs more man hours, but that is the irony. If the men who worked the hours no longer needed do not find work elsewhere they still cost the public purse - so although they are paid less for doing nothing they still cost and now we are paying more for what is being done as well as paying for people not doing it.

Why the hell dont we (society, government) say right we are going to take every single person signing on, put them in Labour gangs, and pay them minimum wage instead of unemployment and fix the roads. Fill in potholes or strip surfaces and replace them by hand. Paint white lines along verges - all verges not just A roads. Re paint the central white lines. Where there is bits susceptible to flooding analyse why and if could be prevented - for example near me a 50 meter stretch could be protected by the building of a bank about 100 meters long, other places might benefit from better drainage ditches etc.

We have work to be done and people needing work - we need to put them together.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:37 pm

work gangs eh??? what next, workhouses for the fallen women?
Overseers, whips chains and molestation?

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:39 pm

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:09 pm

Seriously are you people so bloody short sighted you are going to make objections because of the words used.

Groups of people being paid a legal wage to fix the roads - what exactly is the problem with that idea?

Taking people that are unemployed doing nothing and giving them a bit more money to do something that benefits everyone.

The roads need fixing. There are people without work who are already being paid. Why not put the 2 together?

I have said nothing about whips chains or molestation or overseers or work houses. I have said take the people who have no work, get them to do this work that needs doing, pay them legal wage for doing it.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:23 pm

No Sphinx, we are not shortsighted. The nub of your post was this:

I know there will be people saying that road repair requires highly paid skilled operatives - its not a simply job, because they way its done at the moment does utilize technical machinery etc but if we stop and think about it roads can be built and maintained with simple tools and labour - they were for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Do you really think that modern roads, for the amount and type of traffic they take, huge lorries etc, can be built to the standards they have pass by the simple tools and labour from years ago. Engineering has quite passed you by then.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:52 pm

So what if they are not built to "modern standards"? They could be kept in a damn site better condition than they are now.
There are simple repairs that need doing now and which could be done by people with minimal training. We are leaving roads in a horrific state because the state cannot afford to fix them while people are kept on benefits.

I mean what is preferable for the person who is unemployed - benefits for nothing or minimum wage for doing something? What is preferable for drivers the roads left as they are or with running repairs done on them?

I mean where is peoples will to improve here? Where is people wanting to improve two things with one project?

How would this disadvantage anyone?

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:18 pm

sphinx wrote:So what if they are not built to "modern standards"? They could be kept in a damn site better condition than they are now.
There are simple repairs that need doing now and which could be done by people with minimal training. We are leaving roads in a horrific state because the state cannot afford to fix them while people are kept on benefits.

I mean what is preferable for the person who is unemployed - benefits for nothing or minimum wage for doing something? What is preferable for drivers the roads left as they are or with running repairs done on them?

I mean where is peoples will to improve here? Where is people wanting to improve two things with one project?

How would this disadvantage anyone?

So what if they are not built to "modern standards"?

Highway authorities have specific legal duties nd responsibilities that are prescribed by various acts
and regulations; thus a balanced safety risk assessment methodology that takes account of these must be put
in place. road repair is a bit more than just filling in the holes .

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol0/section2/gd0412.pdf

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:28 pm

More public sector workers it is then.

cheers

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:34 pm

Korben Dallas wrote:
sphinx wrote:So what if they are not built to "modern standards"? They could be kept in a damn site better condition than they are now.
There are simple repairs that need doing now and which could be done by people with minimal training. We are leaving roads in a horrific state because the state cannot afford to fix them while people are kept on benefits.

I mean what is preferable for the person who is unemployed - benefits for nothing or minimum wage for doing something? What is preferable for drivers the roads left as they are or with running repairs done on them?

I mean where is peoples will to improve here? Where is people wanting to improve two things with one project?

How would this disadvantage anyone?

So what if they are not built to "modern standards"?

Highway authorities have specific legal duties nd responsibilities that are prescribed by various acts
and regulations; thus a balanced safety risk assessment methodology that takes account of these must be put
in place. road repair is a bit more than just filling in the holes .

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol0/section2/gd0412.pdf

So the excuse for having people denied work that needs doing and keeping the roads in a substandard condition is some laws say it isnt allowed?

Hello - the fucking government could change the law if it actually had a will to.

Can anyone please tell me a proper legitimate reason why we cannot take the people that do not have work and have them do the work that is not being done.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:37 pm

Irn Bru wrote:More public sector workers it is then.

The money comes from the same source and this is actual work that does need to be done. I object to increases in public sector employment with make work schemes doing stuff that is totally unnecessary (like roller blading co-ordinator) I do not object to getting people who have no work do work which is necessary and beneficial to everyone and being paid to so it.

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:39 pm

sphinx wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
So what if they are not built to "modern standards"?

Highway authorities have specific legal duties nd responsibilities that are prescribed by various acts
and regulations; thus a balanced safety risk assessment methodology that takes account of these must be put
in place. road repair is a bit more than just filling in the holes .

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol0/section2/gd0412.pdf

So the excuse for having people denied work that needs doing and keeping the roads in a substandard condition is some laws say it isnt allowed?

Hello - the fucking government could change the law if it actually had a will to.

Can anyone please tell me a proper legitimate reason why we cannot take the people that do not have work and have them do the work that is not being done.

After training there is no reason why they cannot be taken on as public sector workers by the council other than the councils are skint because Osborne has cut their funding from central government.

The grim reality of 'the cuts'

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:56 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So the excuse for having people denied work that needs doing and keeping the roads in a substandard condition is some laws say it isnt allowed?

Hello - the fucking government could change the law if it actually had a will to.

Can anyone please tell me a proper legitimate reason why we cannot take the people that do not have work and have them do the work that is not being done.

After training there is no reason why they cannot be taken on as public sector workers by the council other than the councils are skint because Osborne has cut their funding from central government.

The grim reality of 'the cuts'

But they are still being paid for not doing anything!!!!

The whole cuts excuse is a blind. The whole "no money for councils" thing is a blind.

Fact all funding for government and councils comes from the same source - the taxes of privately paid incomes (be they wages inheritance or whatever)

It is ridiculous to have a situation where a man can be stuck doing nothing and getting £8800 a year while there is a job not done because it would pay £12900 a year. If the man is taken on to do the work the actual cost to the public purse is £4100 because it was already paying out £8800.

It is often argued that as a society we have option but to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves so people who cannot find work in the private sector will always have to be paid by the public sector - so surely the simple choice is are those seen as an unavoidable drain on resources or a usable resource in their own right.

Again if tomorrow every person claiming JSA was phoned up and told there was work for them starting immediately paying minimum wage and they were sent out to help fix and maintain roads/verges what would be bad about it?

by gerber Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:29 pm

sphinx wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

After training there is no reason why they cannot be taken on as public sector workers by the council other than the councils are skint because Osborne has cut their funding from central government.

The grim reality of 'the cuts'

But they are still being paid for not doing anything!!!!

The whole cuts excuse is a blind. The whole "no money for councils" thing is a blind.

Fact all funding for government and councils comes from the same source - the taxes of privately paid incomes (be they wages inheritance or whatever)

It is ridiculous to have a situation where a man can be stuck doing nothing and getting £8800 a year while there is a job not done because it would pay £12900 a year. If the man is taken on to do the work the actual cost to the public purse is £4100 because it was already paying out £8800.

It is often argued that as a society we have option but to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves so people who cannot find work in the private sector will always have to be paid by the public sector - so surely the simple choice is are those seen as an unavoidable drain on resources or a usable resource in their own right.

Again if tomorrow every person claiming JSA was phoned up and told there was work for them starting immediately paying minimum wage and they were sent out to help fix and maintain roads/verges what would be bad about it?

Brilliant. Gets my vote. I doubt though more than half would be willing to get out of bed and there lies the problem. If benefit was withheld as they had not gotten out of bed then on Monday 100 % turnout.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:40 pm

gerber wrote:
sphinx wrote:

But they are still being paid for not doing anything!!!!

The whole cuts excuse is a blind. The whole "no money for councils" thing is a blind.

Fact all funding for government and councils comes from the same source - the taxes of privately paid incomes (be they wages inheritance or whatever)

It is ridiculous to have a situation where a man can be stuck doing nothing and getting £8800 a year while there is a job not done because it would pay £12900 a year. If the man is taken on to do the work the actual cost to the public purse is £4100 because it was already paying out £8800.

It is often argued that as a society we have option but to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves so people who cannot find work in the private sector will always have to be paid by the public sector - so surely the simple choice is are those seen as an unavoidable drain on resources or a usable resource in their own right.

Again if tomorrow every person claiming JSA was phoned up and told there was work for them starting immediately paying minimum wage and they were sent out to help fix and maintain roads/verges what would be bad about it?

Brilliant. Gets my vote. I doubt though more than half would be willing to get out of bed and there lies the problem. If benefit was withheld as they had not gotten out of bed then on Monday 100 % turnout.

Move the "unemployment office" to council offices. Have all necessary and desirable work for the authority listed. When someone is unable to find "private sector" income they go to the "unemployment office" who assesses any training/skills/qualifications they have in for matches to any necessary if nothing is found the person is offered non skilled work paid at minimum wage. If they dont like whats offered they are free to refuse it - but then wont get any money. The absolutely only time there will be pay for not doing anything is in the event that the local authority has nothing that it wants or needs done.

by gerber Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:49 pm

sphinx wrote:
gerber wrote:

Brilliant. Gets my vote. I doubt though more than half would be willing to get out of bed and there lies the problem. If benefit was withheld as they had not gotten out of bed then on Monday 100 % turnout.

Move the "unemployment office" to council offices. Have all necessary and desirable work for the authority listed. When someone is unable to find "private sector" income they go to the "unemployment office" who assesses any training/skills/qualifications they have in for matches to any necessary if nothing is found the person is offered non skilled work paid at minimum wage. If they dont like whats offered they are free to refuse it - but then wont get any money. The absolutely only time there will be pay for not doing anything is in the event that the local authority has nothing that it wants or needs done.

Hope they supply free bikes and places to put the bikes securely.........
The other alternative is to reintroduce National Service so anyone not in education from 16 will be trained to do what is required by the councils

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:53 pm

sphinx wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

After training there is no reason why they cannot be taken on as public sector workers by the council other than the councils are skint because Osborne has cut their funding from central government.

The grim reality of 'the cuts'

But they are still being paid for not doing anything!!!!

The whole cuts excuse is a blind. The whole "no money for councils" thing is a blind.

Fact all funding for government and councils comes from the same source - the taxes of privately paid incomes (be they wages inheritance or whatever)

It is ridiculous to have a situation where a man can be stuck doing nothing and getting £8800 a year while there is a job not done because it would pay £12900 a year. If the man is taken on to do the work the actual cost to the public purse is £4100 because it was already paying out £8800.

It is often argued that as a society we have option but to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves so people who cannot find work in the private sector will always have to be paid by the public sector - so surely the simple choice is are those seen as an unavoidable drain on resources or a usable resource in their own right.

Again if tomorrow every person claiming JSA was phoned up and told there was work for them starting immediately paying minimum wage and they were sent out to help fix and maintain roads/verges what would be bad about it?

I'm not arguing with you Sphinx and I agree that if they are properly trained and paid at least the NMW then there is nothing really wrong with them becoming public sector workers.

But it's not me you have to convince, it's Osborne who holds the purse strings at the moment and he has to provide the funding to the councils to enable it to happen.

by gerber Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:30 pm

I agree the stumbling block may be Osbourne.......................Not a fan anyway

But surely the net result would be an automatic reduction in all crime areas from petty through to serious as they wouldn't have the time. A win win for everyone.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:36 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:

But they are still being paid for not doing anything!!!!

The whole cuts excuse is a blind. The whole "no money for councils" thing is a blind.

Fact all funding for government and councils comes from the same source - the taxes of privately paid incomes (be they wages inheritance or whatever)

It is ridiculous to have a situation where a man can be stuck doing nothing and getting £8800 a year while there is a job not done because it would pay £12900 a year. If the man is taken on to do the work the actual cost to the public purse is £4100 because it was already paying out £8800.

It is often argued that as a society we have option but to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves so people who cannot find work in the private sector will always have to be paid by the public sector - so surely the simple choice is are those seen as an unavoidable drain on resources or a usable resource in their own right.

Again if tomorrow every person claiming JSA was phoned up and told there was work for them starting immediately paying minimum wage and they were sent out to help fix and maintain roads/verges what would be bad about it?

I'm not arguing with you Sphinx and I agree that if they are properly trained and paid at least the NMW then there is nothing really wrong with them becoming public sector workers.

But it's not me you have to convince, it's Osborne who holds the purse strings at the moment and he has to provide the funding to the councils to enable it to happen.

This is not something it is relevant to just one political philosophy - and its not about providing funding either. It needs a totally new from the bottom up change not just fiddling with the current system.

As for funding - it is already funded. We are already providing money to people. We have a huge industry and tens of thousands of people geared up to paying money to protect people from the effects of being unable to work. Doesn't it make sense to protect people by getting them to do work that is not being done?

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:36 pm

gerber wrote:I agree the stumbling block may be Osbourne.......................Not a fan anyway

But surely the net result would be an automatic reduction in all crime areas from petty through to serious as they wouldn't have the time. A win win for everyone.

Hi there Gerber,

Yes, it is just as you say and it really would be self-financing in the long run. It just takes the will but I'm afraid this coalition government will never accept increasing the public sector workforce under the terms of the NMW.

It's just not in their game plan in any shape or form.

Good to see your here.

by gerber Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:47 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
gerber wrote:I agree the stumbling block may be Osbourne.......................Not a fan anyway

But surely the net result would be an automatic reduction in all crime areas from petty through to serious as they wouldn't have the time. A win win for everyone.

Hi there Gerber,

Yes, it is just as you say and it really would be self-financing in the long run. It just takes the will but I'm afraid this coalition government will never accept increasing the public sector workforce under the terms of the NMW.

It's just not in their game plan in any shape or form.

Good to see your here.

Thank you................Great to be here.......................Have we spoke before ? HOM perchance

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:49 pm

gerber wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Hi there Gerber,

Yes, it is just as you say and it really would be self-financing in the long run. It just takes the will but I'm afraid this coalition government will never accept increasing the public sector workforce under the terms of the NMW.

It's just not in their game plan in any shape or form.

Good to see your here.

Thank you................Great to be here.......................Have we spoke before ? HOM perchance

The original Gerber - on the nail - that's me

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:53 pm

Amazing! They go out of their way to make public sector workers redundant, and then the very people who cheered when they did, are ok with making other people public sector workers, providing they are used as chain gangs on the road, doing it the old way by labour (ie work wise) not machines. You couldn't make it up!

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:58 pm

Have they, news to me.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:00 pm

Read above, that is, in short, exactly what is being proposed.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:03 pm

Sassy wrote:Amazing! They go out of their way to make public sector workers redundant, and then the very people who cheered when they did, are ok with making other people public sector workers, providing they are used as chain gangs on the road, doing it the old way by labour (ie work wise) not machines. You couldn't make it up!

Look can everyone just try and forget political "my party is better than your party" point scoring right now - as I have said this is not a small tweaking of the present system neither is it about employing more public sector workers.

Please forget all the bits about councils and parties and governments and training and focus on the central bit. Forget how it would work and imaginary chain gangs and all the other imaginary stuff nobody has said anything about.

What is wrong with taking a person who is being given money and not working and having them do work (that would benefit everyone but which is not being done) for a little bit more money?

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:09 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:Amazing! They go out of their way to make public sector workers redundant, and then the very people who cheered when they did, are ok with making other people public sector workers, providing they are used as chain gangs on the road, doing it the old way by labour (ie work wise) not machines. You couldn't make it up!

Look can everyone just try and forget political "my party is better than your party" point scoring right now - as I have said this is not a small tweaking of the present system neither is it about employing more public sector workers.

Please forget all the bits about councils and parties and governments and training and focus on the central bit. Forget how it would work and imaginary chain gangs and all the other imaginary stuff nobody has said anything about.

What is wrong with taking a person who is being given money and not working and having them do work (that would benefit everyone but which is not being done) for a little bit more money?

Providing they are properly trained to do the work and are given the proper tools and machinery to do the job and they are paid the NMW then there is nothing wrong with that.

I've already said that.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:21 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Look can everyone just try and forget political "my party is better than your party" point scoring right now - as I have said this is not a small tweaking of the present system neither is it about employing more public sector workers.

Please forget all the bits about councils and parties and governments and training and focus on the central bit. Forget how it would work and imaginary chain gangs and all the other imaginary stuff nobody has said anything about.

What is wrong with taking a person who is being given money and not working and having them do work (that would benefit everyone but which is not being done) for a little bit more money?

Providing they are properly trained to do the work and are given the proper tools and machinery to do the job and they are paid the NMW then there is nothing wrong with that.

I've already said that.

What exactly do you mean by proper training tools and machinery though? There are plenty of jobs than be done with with ordinary labour or with more complicated machinery. For instance a carpenter can saw through wood with a hand saw or an electric saw - the electric saw is quicker but the handsaw does just as good a job. If the use of carpenter is going to be getting paid the same whether he does the job done in 5 minutes or 5 hours there is no need for an electric saw.

by Clarkson Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:25 pm

Sassy wrote:OMG!

Yes to think someone has actually suggested that those living of the taxpayer actually give something back. How horrendous. An affront to Human rights. They might miss Jeremy Kyle they may even miss there morning stroll to McDonalds.

Why is it that the left are so horrified with the thought of work for benefits. Are you all scousers?

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:30 pm

Clarkson wrote:
Sassy wrote:OMG!

Yes to think someone has actually suggested that those living of the taxpayer actually give something back. How horrendous. An affront to Human rights. They might miss Jeremy Kyle they may even miss there morning stroll to McDonalds.

Why is it that the left are so horrified with the thought of work for benefits. Are you all scousers?

You are just as inaccurate as sassy is.

This is not work for benefits this is why are we paying benefits to people when there is publicly necessary work not being done.

Oh and I am one quarter scouse so watch the implications.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:30 pm

funny this, the supporters of THIS idea here howled in indignation elsewhere when I suggested setting up subsidised factories, with the required creche facilities, as a part of a workable solution....yet here we are...subsidised public works..not a ole lot of difference.

of course nothing will be done to prevent ATOS sending crippled and terminal cases out in all weathers on this, whilst the pen pushers and office wallahs sit there warm and smirking....(and whilst That could attract accusations of hyperbola, you KNOW it would happen)

secondl;t sphinx, on the issue of standards....there are laws and standards to which the local authority MUST adhere, and these mean the roads HAVE to be maintained in a certain way. If they fail to do this and there is an accident due to NOT carrying out the repairs to the correct standard, there will be hell to pay.
Are you saying that potentially dangerous road surfaces, with the risk of serious accidents is a price worth paying??

Not everyone is physically capable of labouring, particularly, but not exclusively, older folk are you going to take a 60 year old office lizard, with his inevitable (but likely unknown) coronary disease, and send him out labouring when he gets made redundant? Do YOU want the inevitable bill when the responsible body gets sued. What about the large numbers of 50+ year olds with arthritic conditions, they are fine in an office or other indoor non-physical work but road mending??

how are folks going to get to the work?

this is , believe or not 2014, not 1860, expectations have changed,

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:34 pm

Honestly, mad as a bunch of frogs. How many times has Drinky gone on about how good it was of the government to get rid of the public sector.

by Clarkson Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:40 pm

sphinx wrote:
Clarkson wrote:

Yes to think someone has actually suggested that those living of the taxpayer actually give something back. How horrendous. An affront to Human rights. They might miss Jeremy Kyle they may even miss there morning stroll to McDonalds.

Why is it that the left are so horrified with the thought of work for benefits. Are you all scousers?

You are just as inaccurate as sassy is.

This is not work for benefits this is why are we paying benefits to people when there is publicly necessary work not being done.

Oh and I am one quarter scouse so watch the implications.

It was meant to be tongue in cheek.

Rather more seriously Lah isn't it supposed to demean a person when they can't find work. Yet offer some way of giving back and every obstacle is thrown up by the Jeremy Kyle appreciation society (Marx and Engels Branch)

Is it demeaning not being able to find work and if it is wouldn't the opportunity to get into a routine be a good thing. e.g getting up for work having to be their on time etc etc.

God forbid!

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:42 pm

sphinx wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Providing they are properly trained to do the work and are given the proper tools and machinery to do the job and they are paid the NMW then there is nothing wrong with that.

I've already said that.

What exactly do you mean by proper training tools and machinery though? There are plenty of jobs than be done with with ordinary labour or with more complicated machinery. For instance a carpenter can saw through wood with a hand saw or an electric saw - the electric saw is quicker but the handsaw does just as good a job. If the use of carpenter is going to be getting paid the same whether he does the job done in 5 minutes or 5 hours there is no need for an electric saw.

Misguided, lack of knowledge or what Sphinx, you know nothing of carpentry obviously.

let me tell you , using a hand saw requires a LOT more skill to cut accurately, than does a machine saw, granted a machine saw needs more training since they are vastly more dangerous, but properly set they cut dead on every time. And I can assure you NO ONE that has ever tried it is going to spend 5 hrs hand ripping down a 20 foot length of 9x3 hardwood...I know...I have done it....ONCE. anyone telling me to repeat that trick would be told where to shove it..and I DONT care that (engage R/W winge voice) "It used to be done that way". Women used to give birth without entonox and epidurals, by your suggestion we could save the NHS a fortune and stop that practice, Clearly its not necessary per se, merely desirable...

Clearly...you have NO idea what Hard work is.....those who claim hard work never killed anyone....have never done any.... Basketball

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:45 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

What exactly do you mean by proper training tools and machinery though? There are plenty of jobs than be done with with ordinary labour or with more complicated machinery. For instance a carpenter can saw through wood with a hand saw or an electric saw - the electric saw is quicker but the handsaw does just as good a job. If the use of carpenter is going to be getting paid the same whether he does the job done in 5 minutes or 5 hours there is no need for an electric saw.

Misguided, lack of knowledge or what Sphinx, you know nothing of carpentry obviously.

let me tell you , using a hand saw requires a LOT more skill to cut accurately, than does a machine saw, granted a machine saw needs more training since they are vastly more dangerous, but properly set they cut dead on every time. And I can assure you NO ONE that has ever tried it is going to spend 5 hrs hand ripping down a 20 foot length of 9x3 hardwood...I know...I have done it....ONCE. anyone telling me to repeat that trick would be told where to shove it..and I DONT care that (engage R/W winge voice) "It used to be done that way". Women used to give birth without entonox and epidurals, by your suggestion we could save the NHS a fortune and stop that practice, Clearly its not necessary per se, merely desirable...

Clearly...you have NO idea what Hard work is.....those who claim hard work never killed anyone....have never done any....

Spot on! So you are going to get someone of 50 who has never done manual work before, and set them to work on the roads with just a shovel and are going to be surprised when they either injure themselves badly or have a heart attack. Load of ill thought out, ignorant rubbish.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:59 pm

Clarkson wrote:
sphinx wrote:

You are just as inaccurate as sassy is.

This is not work for benefits this is why are we paying benefits to people when there is publicly necessary work not being done.

Oh and I am one quarter scouse so watch the implications.

It was meant to be tongue in cheek.

Rather more seriously Lah isn't it supposed to demean a person when they can't find work. Yet offer some way of giving back and every obstacle is thrown up by the Jeremy Kyle appreciation society (Marx and Engels Branch)

Is it demeaning not being able to find work and if it is wouldn't the opportunity to get into a routine be a good thing. e.g getting up for work having to be their on time etc etc.

God forbid!

Dont mistake my response, drinky, the "idea" has merit, but flagging up the potential problems...which MUST be addressed is NOT a bad thing,
people would HAVE to be PROPERLY assesed for

Skills
Health (by a DOCTOR, not an ATOS monkey)
Availability (as in ability to travel to wherever, remember your darling maggie ruined the public transport network, particularly in some rural areas, some villages either have no busses or very few and far between)

again, only properly skilled folks could be allowed to do certain jobs, as in my point about standards for roads, believe it or not there is a series of BSEN numbers for roads Shocked

Though this doesnt preclude the TRAINING of folks to those standards, in fact, i recon I'm warming to the idea, Lets turn it on its head a min...lets have a law that says not only should the unemployed have a duty to take such work BUT THAT the unemployed have a RIGHT to make their LA provide them with the training THEN a job on at least min wage???? Or does the deal only cut ONE way??

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:00 pm

grumpy old git wrote:funny this, the supporters of THIS idea here howled in indignation elsewhere when I suggested setting up subsidised factories, with the required creche facilities, as a part of a workable solution....yet here we are...subsidised public works..not a ole lot of difference.

of course nothing will be done to prevent ATOS sending crippled and terminal cases out in all weathers on this, whilst the pen pushers and office wallahs sit there warm and smirking....(and whilst That could attract accusations of hyperbola, you KNOW it would happen)

secondl;t sphinx, on the issue of standards....there are laws and standards to which the local authority MUST adhere, and these mean the roads HAVE to be maintained in a certain way. If they fail to do this and there is an accident due to NOT carrying out the repairs to the correct standard, there will be hell to pay.
Are you saying that potentially dangerous road surfaces, with the risk of serious accidents is a price worth paying??

Not everyone is physically capable of labouring, particularly, but not exclusively, older folk are you going to take a 60 year old office lizard, with his inevitable (but likely unknown) coronary disease, and send him out labouring when he gets made redundant? Do YOU want the inevitable bill when the responsible body gets sued. What about the large numbers of 50+ year olds with arthritic conditions, they are fine in an office or other indoor non-physical work but road mending??

how are folks going to get to the work?

this is , believe or not 2014, not 1860, expectations have changed,

One - this is not subsidised labour this is stopping subsidised non labour by getting necessary work done.

Two - I have repeatedly stated that people need to forget what is happening now because this would need to completely new from the ground up. As for crippled when the welfare state was first set up employers were legally obligated to employ the disabled in jobs that were suitable for them. I for one would be delighted if that were still the case.

Three - If the roads around here are up to some legal standard I am a ducks asshole. They could be very badly repaired indeed and be in a better condition than they are now. We are already suffering potentially dangerous road surfaces with the risk of accidents.

Four - There are plenty of roles not involving heavy labour - some in fact involving just the sort of labour our doctors are constantly begging us to do in order to ward of coronary events. White line painting for instance - walking at a steady pace with frequent breaks.

One thing everyone is missing (yes I know because I have not made it clear) is that such work would be done under a completely different model of value. In the private sector for instance wage costs are seen as a necessary evil to be minimized as much as possible - if one person can do the job of 2 by using a fancy piece of equipment with a one off price that is the way to go. In a work instead of benefits system wages would have to be seen as an inevitable static - people are going to be paid anyway whether they do anything or not so there is no benefit to spending money on equipment that allows one to do what 2 do. In the private sector time is often rated equal to or higher than quality, in a work instead of benefits system quality would be rated above time with efficiency also being rated.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:13 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

What exactly do you mean by proper training tools and machinery though? There are plenty of jobs than be done with with ordinary labour or with more complicated machinery. For instance a carpenter can saw through wood with a hand saw or an electric saw - the electric saw is quicker but the handsaw does just as good a job. If the use of carpenter is going to be getting paid the same whether he does the job done in 5 minutes or 5 hours there is no need for an electric saw.

Misguided, lack of knowledge or what Sphinx, you know nothing of carpentry obviously.

let me tell you , using a hand saw requires a LOT more skill to cut accurately, than does a machine saw, granted a machine saw needs more training since they are vastly more dangerous, but properly set they cut dead on every time. And I can assure you NO ONE that has ever tried it is going to spend 5 hrs hand ripping down a 20 foot length of 9x3 hardwood...I know...I have done it....ONCE. anyone telling me to repeat that trick would be told where to shove it..and I DONT care that (engage R/W winge voice) "It used to be done that way". Women used to give birth without entonox and epidurals, by your suggestion we could save the NHS a fortune and stop that practice, Clearly its not necessary per se, merely desirable...

Clearly...you have NO idea what Hard work is.....those who claim hard work never killed anyone....have never done any....

Yeah sorry for a minute I forgot I have never done harvesting by hand.........hang on sec though I did.

I am not saying every single little thing done as it was before I am saying there is a balance. For instance to control traffic around a temporary work site you can use traffic lights - which once set up need nobody working. Or you can have 2 people with a radio on stop go swivel signs.

Or even if we go completely for the "but everything must be done to modern standards using modern equipment" the basic premise still remains - why are we giving money to people who dont work when there is work that needs doing.

This person is paid £70 JSA - they could do 11 hours a week, start off with training then pay
They get £100 LHA & CTB as well - that takes it up to 27 hours a week.

Why are we being told that the roads cant be repaired, the verges cleared, the parks tidied, the streets cleaned, so on and so forth because there is no money to pay for it. It is being paid for - or at least some of it is being paid for. How can there be people out of work when there is work to be done?

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:21 pm

Some brilliant replies from Sphinx here on this I very much agree with you, so very good ideas I have to say, and I fail to see why people cannot do some work for the benefits they receive, a few hours a week is no bad thing, keeps them focused doing something and something good, motivation can be a great factor in helping people back into work

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:21 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:funny this, the supporters of THIS idea here howled in indignation elsewhere when I suggested setting up subsidised factories, with the required creche facilities, as a part of a workable solution....yet here we are...subsidised public works..not a ole lot of difference.

of course nothing will be done to prevent ATOS sending crippled and terminal cases out in all weathers on this, whilst the pen pushers and office wallahs sit there warm and smirking....(and whilst That could attract accusations of hyperbola, you KNOW it would happen)

secondl;t sphinx, on the issue of standards....there are laws and standards to which the local authority MUST adhere, and these mean the roads HAVE to be maintained in a certain way. If they fail to do this and there is an accident due to NOT carrying out the repairs to the correct standard, there will be hell to pay.
Are you saying that potentially dangerous road surfaces, with the risk of serious accidents is a price worth paying??

Not everyone is physically capable of labouring, particularly, but not exclusively, older folk are you going to take a 60 year old office lizard, with his inevitable (but likely unknown) coronary disease, and send him out labouring when he gets made redundant? Do YOU want the inevitable bill when the responsible body gets sued. What about the large numbers of 50+ year olds with arthritic conditions, they are fine in an office or other indoor non-physical work but road mending??

how are folks going to get to the work?

this is , believe or not 2014, not 1860, expectations have changed,

One - this is not subsidised labour this is stopping subsidised non labour by getting necessary work done.

Is there any essential difference, or are we arguing semantics here??

Two - I have repeatedly stated that people need to forget what is happening now because this would need to completely new from the ground up. As for crippled when the welfare state was first set up employers were legally obligated to employ the disabled in jobs that were suitable for them. I for one would be delighted if that were still the case.

In both these points we have agreement, but, there would have to be proper laws in place to ensure that these "public" workers were not subject to lesser conditions than exist elsewhere

Three - If the roads around here are up to some legal standard I am a ducks asshole. They could be very badly repaired indeed and be in a better condition than they are now. We are already suffering potentially dangerous road surfaces with the risk of accidents.

You too? we dont have roads, we have strings of tarmac, held together with pot holes, but different standards apply to roads and to road repairs. The liability of a LA is lesser for a bad road than for a badly done repair. :\\:[: ....I know...nuts, but there you are.

Four - There are plenty of roles not involving heavy labour - some in fact involving just the sort of labour our doctors are constantly begging us to do in order to ward of coronary events. White line painting for instance - walking at a steady pace with frequent breaks.

tee hee...try THAT over snake pass

One thing everyone is missing (yes I know because I have not made it clear) is that such work would be done under a completely different model of value. In the private sector for instance wage costs are seen as a necessary evil to be minimized as much as possible - if one person can do the job of 2 by using a fancy piece of equipment with a one off price that is the way to go. In a work instead of benefits system wages would have to be seen as an inevitable static - people are going to be paid anyway whether they do anything or not so there is no benefit to spending money on equipment that allows one to do what 2 do. In the private sector time is often rated equal to or higher than quality, in a work instead of benefits system quality would be rated above time with efficiency also being rated.
Those two are logically and mutually exclusive sphinx...think about it

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:25 pm

sphinx wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Providing they are properly trained to do the work and are given the proper tools and machinery to do the job and they are paid the NMW then there is nothing wrong with that.

I've already said that.

What exactly do you mean by proper training tools and machinery though? There are plenty of jobs than be done with with ordinary labour or with more complicated machinery. For instance a carpenter can saw through wood with a hand saw or an electric saw - the electric saw is quicker but the handsaw does just as good a job. If the use of carpenter is going to be getting paid the same whether he does the job done in 5 minutes or 5 hours there is no need for an electric saw.

The very fact that you ask that question in relation to working and fixing the roads etc. and what you go on to say after that just tells me what you really have in mind. You want people to work with just the bare essentials using hard graft when there are tools and machinery available that will do it more quickly and more efficiently. And they have to be properly trained because it's not all that safe working on a road. And just pouring concrete down a hole will only fix a pothole until it rains for a few days or there is a hard frost.
You see, you really don't have a clue and nether would the people that want to send out to do the work with probably just a pick and shovel which makes it hard labour for no other reason than for it to be hard labour. And they'll be back a few weeks later to fix it all again complete with a set of temporary traffic lights causing misery for all those held up while they get on with it.
I really should have known better when you first brought this up that there was more to it than just fixing the roads but I've got you now and you can ram it.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:26 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Misguided, lack of knowledge or what Sphinx, you know nothing of carpentry obviously.

let me tell you , using a hand saw requires a LOT more skill to cut accurately, than does a machine saw, granted a machine saw needs more training since they are vastly more dangerous, but properly set they cut dead on every time. And I can assure you NO ONE that has ever tried it is going to spend 5 hrs hand ripping down a 20 foot length of 9x3 hardwood...I know...I have done it....ONCE. anyone telling me to repeat that trick would be told where to shove it..and I DONT care that (engage R/W winge voice) "It used to be done that way". Women used to give birth without entonox and epidurals, by your suggestion we could save the NHS a fortune and stop that practice, Clearly its not necessary per se, merely desirable...

Clearly...you have NO idea what Hard work is.....those who claim hard work never killed anyone....have never done any....

Yeah sorry for a minute I forgot I have never done harvesting by hand.........hang on sec though I did.

Harvesting by hand?? go on then...what and how much??
and, it has to be said.....hardly skilled, but agreed ...back breaking...though I do like scything...very therapeutic on a nice warm autumn evening, step swish, step swish,step swish. You can soon get through an acre that way :D

I am not saying every single little thing done as it was before I am saying there is a balance. For instance to control traffic around a temporary work site you can use traffic lights - which once set up need nobody working. Or you can have 2 people with a radio on stop go swivel signs.

but in the long term this is just uneconomical, given the service life of those little portable traffic light sets, and their relatively low capital cost THEY cost less than having someone unemployed

Or even if we go completely for the "but everything must be done to modern standards using modern equipment" the basic premise still remains - why are we giving money to people who dont work when there is work that needs doing.

This person is paid £70 JSA - they could do 11 hours a week, start off with training then pay
They get £100 LHA & CTB as well - that takes it up to 27 hours a week.

Why are we being told that the roads cant be repaired, the verges cleared, the parks tidied, the streets cleaned, so on and so forth because there is no money to pay for it. It is being paid for - or at least some of it is being paid for. How can there be people out of work when there is work to be done?

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:29 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:

What exactly do you mean by proper training tools and machinery though? There are plenty of jobs than be done with with ordinary labour or with more complicated machinery. For instance a carpenter can saw through wood with a hand saw or an electric saw - the electric saw is quicker but the handsaw does just as good a job. If the use of carpenter is going to be getting paid the same whether he does the job done in 5 minutes or 5 hours there is no need for an electric saw.

The very fact that you ask that question in relation to working and fixing the roads etc. and what you go on to say after that just tells me what you really have in mind. You want people to work with just the bare essentials using hard graft when there are tools and machinery available that will do it more quickly and more efficiently. And they have to be properly trained because it's not all that safe working on a road. And just pouring concrete down a hole will only fix a pothole until it rains for a few days or there is a hard frost.
You see, you really don't have a clue and nether would the people that want to send out to do the work with probably just a pick and shovel which makes it hard labour for no other reason than for it to be hard labour. And they'll be back a few weeks later to fix it all again complete with a set of temporary traffic lights causing misery for all those held up while they get on with it.
I really should have known better when you first brought this up that there was more to it than just fixing the roads but I've got you now and you can ram it.

Jesus wept, people for years worked without having the need of qualifications and a licence how to hold a tool, they learnt the trade from others or were so bothered about the dam wether, that is what is so daft today, without such restriction you might get more people back into work, everything now a days needs weeks of studying with a qualification, which to me in some cases is pointless. Fixing holes in roads is not something that requires Rocket science Irn.

Some work gives people some pride ad that is always a good thing

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:35 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Clarkson wrote:

It was meant to be tongue in cheek.

Rather more seriously Lah isn't it supposed to demean a person when they can't find work. Yet offer some way of giving back and every obstacle is thrown up by the Jeremy Kyle appreciation society (Marx and Engels Branch)

Is it demeaning not being able to find work and if it is wouldn't the opportunity to get into a routine be a good thing. e.g getting up for work having to be their on time etc etc.

God forbid!

Dont mistake my response, drinky, the "idea" has merit, but flagging up the potential problems...which MUST be addressed is NOT a bad thing,
people would HAVE to be PROPERLY assesed for

Skills
Health (by a DOCTOR, not an ATOS monkey)
Availability (as in ability to travel to wherever, remember your darling maggie ruined the public transport network, particularly in some rural areas, some villages either have no busses or very few and far between)

again, only properly skilled folks could be allowed to do certain jobs, as in my point about standards for roads, believe it or not there is a series of BSEN numbers for roads Though this doesnt preclude the TRAINING of folks to those standards, in fact, i recon I'm warming to the idea, Lets turn it on its head a min...lets have a law that says not only should the unemployed have a duty to take such work BUT THAT the unemployed have a RIGHT to make their LA provide them with the training THEN a job on at least min wage???? Or does the deal only cut ONE way??

No the idea does not only cut one way.

I just have an issue about how at some times some people have used "training" as an excuse for wasting money. There are plenty of jobs that can be done with quick on the job orientation training that just about anyone can do. If the "right" to "training" was covered by a quick demonstration of how to push a brush, or pull a weed or whatever then fine.

I mean the way I would do it (in full) is
1) Slap a stop on all LA hiring of staff including outside contractors
2) Legally protect every current LA employee for current wage level and expected increase rate.
3) Assess every possible role* for skill level/qualification level/responsibility etc
4) Divide assessed roles into those any fit average person could do with minimal training, those needing minimal training that could be done with some degree of disability, and those that need formal training and qualification.
5) Open normal recruitment on roles needing formal training and qualification
6) Return to the other two groups and divide jobs into necessary to do, would be nice to have done, and if only it could be done (for example it is necessary to cut park grass every fortnight, it would be nice to cut it once a week, if only it could be done every other day)
7) Start the switch from unemployment benefit to guaranteed work - each day a set number of unemployed are sent to the LA and assigned work starting from the necessary list moving through the other 2.

* when I say every possible role I include things like shopping, gardening, home maintenance, for the elderly and disabled, things that can be done without unsupervised access to the vulnerable. Things that are quite simply not done at the moment.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:36 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

The very fact that you ask that question in relation to working and fixing the roads etc. and what you go on to say after that just tells me what you really have in mind. You want people to work with just the bare essentials using hard graft when there are tools and machinery available that will do it more quickly and more efficiently. And they have to be properly trained because it's not all that safe working on a road. And just pouring concrete down a hole will only fix a pothole until it rains for a few days or there is a hard frost.
You see, you really don't have a clue and nether would the people that want to send out to do the work with probably just a pick and shovel which makes it hard labour for no other reason than for it to be hard labour. And they'll be back a few weeks later to fix it all again complete with a set of temporary traffic lights causing misery for all those held up while they get on with it.
I really should have known better when you first brought this up that there was more to it than just fixing the roads but I've got you now and you can ram it.

Jesus wept, people for years worked without having the need of qualifications and a licence how to hold a tool, they learnt the trade from others or were so bothered about the dam wether, that is what is so daft today, without such restriction you might get more people back into work, everything now a days needs weeks of studying with a qualification, which to me in some cases is pointless. Fixing holes in roads is not something that requires Rocket science Irn.

True Didge, It aint rocket science, BUT, it still requires to be done within the requirements of the relevant standards, or there incurrs a liability on the part of both the employeee AND (more particularly) the employer . You see this is where I dissagree with you so much, you are an Idealist...in all you posts, but this isnt an ideal world, and we cant make it so, strewth a guy got nailed to a cross for trying. However, that said..keep it up, the ideas of the idealist give fuel to those who push and shove....

Some work gives people some pride ad that is always a good thing

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:39 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Dont mistake my response, drinky, the "idea" has merit, but flagging up the potential problems...which MUST be addressed is NOT a bad thing,
people would HAVE to be PROPERLY assesed for

Skills
Health (by a DOCTOR, not an ATOS monkey)
Availability (as in ability to travel to wherever, remember your darling maggie ruined the public transport network, particularly in some rural areas, some villages either have no busses or very few and far between)

again, only properly skilled folks could be allowed to do certain jobs, as in my point about standards for roads, believe it or not there is a series of BSEN numbers for roads Though this doesnt preclude the TRAINING of folks to those standards, in fact, i recon I'm warming to the idea, Lets turn it on its head a min...lets have a law that says not only should the unemployed have a duty to take such work BUT THAT the unemployed have a RIGHT to make their LA provide them with the training THEN a job on at least min wage???? Or does the deal only cut ONE way??

No the idea does not only cut one way.

I just have an issue about how at some times some people have used "training" as an excuse for wasting money. There are plenty of jobs that can be done with quick on the job orientation training that just about anyone can do. If the "right" to "training" was covered by a quick demonstration of how to push a brush, or pull a weed or whatever then fine.

Ahh,,now..pulling weeds ISNT that simple, as I found out recently....have you noticed how the verges are full of that yellow weed these days??
its called RAGWORT and is toxic by contact, by inhaling the pollen (a violent allergen) by inhaling the aerosol of sap when the stem is split, in fact is vile. How did they cope in the past, well people were made ill by it, and it no doubt killed some folks over time,chronic poisoning by it gradually destroys the liver

another nasty that is around these days is giant hogweed...not common but very nasty indeed. So protective gear and trainig to identify at least certain plants needed....you see even the simplest (apparently) of jobs is not always straight forward. I'm not trying to "just make problems" here, just pointing out that good though the idea is...its not a "simple" as you seem to think

I mean the way I would do it (in full) is
1) Slap a stop on all LA hiring of staff including outside contractors
2) Legally protect every current LA employee for current wage level and expected increase rate.
3) Assess every possible role* for skill level/qualification level/responsibility etc
4) Divide assessed roles into those any fit average person could do with minimal training, those needing minimal training that could be done with some degree of disability, and those that need formal training and qualification.
5) Open normal recruitment on roles needing formal training and qualification
6) Return to the other two groups and divide jobs into necessary to do, would be nice to have done, and if only it could be done (for example it is necessary to cut park grass every fortnight, it would be nice to cut it once a week, if only it could be done every other day)
7) Start the switch from unemployment benefit to guaranteed work - each day a set number of unemployed are sent to the LA and assigned work starting from the necessary list moving through the other 2.

* when I say every possible role I include things like shopping, gardening, home maintenance, for the elderly and disabled, things that can be done without unsupervised access to the vulnerable. Things that are quite simply not done at the moment.

ummm...I think you will find shopping and especially home maintenance would require contact with the elderly person, but I do see here this could lead to a lot of good, there must be a lot of folks unemployed that COULD be assessed as suitable for contact with vulnerable people surely?

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:40 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
True Didge, It aint rocket science, BUT, it still requires to be done within the requirements of the relevant standards, or there incurrs a liability on the part of both the employeee AND (more particularly) the employer . You see this is where I dissagree with you so much, you are an Idealist...in all you posts, but this isnt an ideal world, and we cant make it so, strewth a guy got nailed to a cross for trying. However, that said..keep it up, the ideas of the idealist give fuel to those who push and shove....

But that is the point, what level of expertise for you need to shovel gravel into a hole, or role a roller over it? Nobody is saying using a pneumatic drill or a digger, seriously do the two things I state really need such standards, when most people are very capable of doing such things daily in their own home areas?
It maybe not an ideal world but changes do not come from being negative all the time, and people you believe in themselves and push themselves generally succeed, so being an idealist is a far better way of living your life, as negativity will always bring you down

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:41 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

The very fact that you ask that question in relation to working and fixing the roads etc. and what you go on to say after that just tells me what you really have in mind. You want people to work with just the bare essentials using hard graft when there are tools and machinery available that will do it more quickly and more efficiently. And they have to be properly trained because it's not all that safe working on a road. And just pouring concrete down a hole will only fix a pothole until it rains for a few days or there is a hard frost.
You see, you really don't have a clue and nether would the people that want to send out to do the work with probably just a pick and shovel which makes it hard labour for no other reason than for it to be hard labour. And they'll be back a few weeks later to fix it all again complete with a set of temporary traffic lights causing misery for all those held up while they get on with it.
I really should have known better when you first brought this up that there was more to it than just fixing the roads but I've got you now and you can ram it.

Jesus wept, people for years worked without having the need of qualifications and a licence how to hold a tool, they learnt the trade from others or were so bothered about the dam wether, that is what is so daft today, without such restriction you might get more people back into work, everything now a days needs weeks of studying with a qualification, which to me in some cases is pointless. Fixing holes in roads is not something that requires Rocket science Irn.

Some work gives people some pride ad that is always a good thing

So because people did it years ago with basic tools then you are saying that that's how it should be done now and that modern methods should just be ignored.. That means it will take longer to do it and if people are not trained on how repairs should be done properly then they'll be back doing the work all over again.

Another one straight out of the Tory mindset.

Priceless

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:44 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:
True Didge, It aint rocket science, BUT, it still requires to be done within the requirements of the relevant standards, or there incurrs a liability on the part of both the employeee AND (more particularly) the employer . You see this is where I dissagree with you so much, you are an Idealist...in all you posts, but this isnt an ideal world, and we cant make it so, strewth a guy got nailed to a cross for trying. However, that said..keep it up, the ideas of the idealist give fuel to those who push and shove....

But that is the point, what level of expertise for you need to shovel gravel into a hole, or role a roller over it? Nobody is saying using a pneumatic drill or a digger, seriously do the two things I state really need such standards, when most people are very capable of doing such things daily in their own home areas?
It maybe not an ideal world but changes do not come from being negative all the time, and people you believe in themselves and push themselves generally succeed, so being an idealist is a far better way of living your life, as negativity will always bring you down

See, see. There it is in black and white. Just shovel gravel into a hole and put a roller over it and hey presto the problem is fixed.

That is absolutely priceless.

Laughing

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:44 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Jesus wept, people for years worked without having the need of qualifications and a licence how to hold a tool, they learnt the trade from others or were so bothered about the dam wether, that is what is so daft today, without such restriction you might get more people back into work, everything now a days needs weeks of studying with a qualification, which to me in some cases is pointless. Fixing holes in roads is not something that requires Rocket science Irn.

Some work gives people some pride ad that is always a good thing

So because people did it years ago with basic tools then you are saying that that's how it should be done now and that modern methods should just be ignored.. That means it will take longer to do it and if people are not trained on how repairs should be done properly then they'll be back doing the work all over again.

Another one straight out of the Tory mindset.

Priceless

Yes people did it for years and also built buildings and works of art like the railways feats of astounding engineering, mainly done by the ordinary person who needed no qualifications. I am not saying all things don;t need training but there are basic things like fixing holes that do not require much if any training, when your task is to fill a hole. Seriously you are telling me a person needs training to know how to fill a hole?

Yes another pointless qualification created by the left, how to fill a hole.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:45 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

But that is the point, what level of expertise for you need to shovel gravel into a hole, or role a roller over it? Nobody is saying using a pneumatic drill or a digger, seriously do the two things I state really need such standards, when most people are very capable of doing such things daily in their own home areas?
It maybe not an ideal world but changes do not come from being negative all the time, and people you believe in themselves and push themselves generally succeed, so being an idealist is a far better way of living your life, as negativity will always bring you down

See, see. There it is in black and white. Just shovel gravel into a hole and put a roller over it and hey presto the problem is fixed.

That is absolutely priceless.

I am showing the basic of an argument, of course there is more to it, but are you saying nobody fills any of the holes?

PMSL

by Sponsored content