This countries unemployment policy is simply not working.

First topic message reminder :

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.

Sassy wrote:I have to laugh at all these RW backers for what Sphinx is saying, when the Government they are backing made 2MILLION public sector workers redundant, for idealogical reasons, and they think that now the Government should employ more people, and they don't see the irony.   The fact that Drinky, of all people, is backing this, when he rants and raves about public sector workers and how more need to be cut, is the biggest hypercrital stance I have ever seen.

I know, it's flippin hilarious isn't it. Fire public sector workers and pay them redundancy money and then re-employ them again as public sector workers.

Never mind, they'll privatise it and companies like SphinxDidge Ltd. will take on the contract and fix all the problems with workers who have nothing more than a pick and shovel.

Never laughed so much at the irony and the idiocy for ages. It's been a good night

veya_victaous wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:
8h.5d,12 months  £3028.8 for a year
minimum wage
Year                                21 and over            18 to 20 Under                  18 Apprentice*
2013 (current rate)          £6.31                     £5.03                              £3.72                                           £2.68

So yes i got that wrong minimum wage its worse than his benifit........... not much of an incentive really But he would  rather work

ps i did not deduct NI and tax so a lot less i guess

@korben
does you son only work 1 week a month? you should be multiplying the 5 days by 52 weeks(or 48 to allow for holidays) so the min wage is still over 13,000

As he is 18, he would get £5.03 hr, 40 hrs week, x 52 weeks = £10,462.40 (less NI, would only pay tax on £462.40

Unemployment £70 a week x 52 weeks = £3,640

I think my calculator is broke or more accurately I am
DOH!!

Irn Bru wrote:

Sassy wrote:I have to laugh at all these RW backers for what Sphinx is saying, when the Government they are backing made 2MILLION public sector workers redundant, for idealogical reasons, and they think that now the Government should employ more people, and they don't see the irony.   The fact that Drinky, of all people, is backing this, when he rants and raves about public sector workers and how more need to be cut, is the biggest hypercrital stance I have ever seen.

I know, it's flippin hilarious isn't it. Fire public sector workers and pay them redundancy money and then re-employ them again as public sector workers.

Never mind, they'll privatise it and companies like SphinxDidge Ltd. will take on the contract and fix all the problems with workers who have nothing more than a pick and shovel.

Never laughed so much at the irony and the idiocy for ages. It's been a good night

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so bloody pathetic!

Korben Dallas wrote:I think my calculator is broke or more accurately I am
DOH!!

No worries, you know me and numbers, meat and drink to me.

Sassy wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:
@korben
does you son only work 1 week a month? you should be multiplying the 5 days by 52 weeks(or 48 to allow for holidays) so the min wage is still over 13,000

As he is 18, he would get £5.03 hr, 40 hrs week, x 52 weeks = £10,462.40 (less NI, would only pay tax on £462.40

Unemployment £70 a week x 52 weeks = £3,640

He is 26 just this month
only ever claimed JS once before this
these new fangled electronics will be the death of me  :D 

Korben Dallas wrote:

Sassy wrote:

As he is 18, he would get £5.03 hr, 40 hrs week, x 52 weeks = £10,462.40 (less NI, would only pay tax on £462.40

Unemployment £70 a week x 52 weeks = £3,640

He is 26 just this month
only ever claimed JS once before this
these new fangled electronics will be the death of me  :D 

Sorry, thought he was 18. Numbers are your friend lol

Irn Bru wrote:

Sassy wrote:I have to laugh at all these RW backers for what Sphinx is saying, when the Government they are backing made 2MILLION public sector workers redundant, for idealogical reasons, and they think that now the Government should employ more people, and they don't see the irony.   The fact that Drinky, of all people, is backing this, when he rants and raves about public sector workers and how more need to be cut, is the biggest hypercrital stance I have ever seen.

I know, it's flippin hilarious isn't it. Fire public sector workers and pay them redundancy money and then re-employ them again as public sector workers.

Never mind, they'll privatise it and companies like SphinxDidge Ltd. will take on the contract and fix all the problems with workers who have nothing more than a pick and shovel.

Never laughed so much at the irony and the idiocy for ages. It's been a good night

How is it hilarious to want to give people some work to do for the money they earn, how is that hilarious, only a brainless left wing idiot would think otherwise, thankfully some left wing people are not like this and who says it has to be a public sector role when you could get private companies to invest in this and even train people with an opportunity of moving on to a full time job. Yes I have never laughed at how daft you are Irn but that is a story for another day really

Sassy wrote:I have to laugh at all these RW backers for what Sphinx is saying, when the Government they are backing made 2MILLION public sector workers redundant, for idealogical reasons, and they think that now the Government should employ more people, and they don't see the irony.   The fact that Drinky, of all people, is backing this, when he rants and raves about public sector workers and how more need to be cut, is the biggest hypercrital stance I have ever seen.

Perhaps you should try stepping back and taking your blinkers off for a minute.
You insist on trying to divide people into left wing and right wing then decide in your head whether anything they say is going to have any merit based on that before anything has even been put.
You are insisting on describing what I am putting as something it is not and then rubbishing people because they are considering what I have put not what you are describing.

Lots of people want to see some areas of the public sector reduced because they are unnecessary and wasteful. Money paid to people for unemployment cannot be stopped so instead why not use the people paid as a resource rather than seeing them as a problem.

I am not suggesting that that the government should employ more people. I am pointing out that the government is already paying a large chunk of people and yet not using them. That the government already employs these people if you like.

Korben Dallas wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I did not realize your son lived at home - I was working on JSA + rent + council tax ending at a rough figure of £8800.  

As for minimum wage 40 hours a week at £6.31 52 weeks a year = £13, 124 a year - I was slightly out on value of the minimum wage.

How on earth do you work out minimum wage at £3028?

8h.5d,12 months  £3028.8 for a year
minimum wage
Year                                21 and over            18 to 20 Under                  18 Apprentice*
2013 (current rate)          £6.31                     £5.03                              £3.72                                           £2.68

So yes i got that wrong minimum wage its worse than his benifit........... not much of an incentive really But he would  rather work

ps i did not deduct NI and tax so a lot less i guess

No you have presented random hours figures - A person working just 8 hours a week is entitled to still sign on and receive a reduced rate of JSA so they are, all be it very slightly, better off. This is where the UC comes in as the person would be significantly better off as the reduction of benefit is much much smaller.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:I have to laugh at all these RW backers for what Sphinx is saying, when the Government they are backing made 2MILLION public sector workers redundant, for idealogical reasons, and they think that now the Government should employ more people, and they don't see the irony.   The fact that Drinky, of all people, is backing this, when he rants and raves about public sector workers and how more need to be cut, is the biggest hypercrital stance I have ever seen.

Perhaps you should try stepping back and taking your blinkers off for a minute.
You insist on trying to divide people into left wing and right wing then decide in your head whether anything they say is going to have any merit based on that before anything has even been put.
You are insisting on describing what I am putting as something it is not and then rubbishing people because they are considering what I have put not what you are describing.

Lots of people want to see some areas of the public sector reduced because they are unnecessary and wasteful. Money paid to people for unemployment cannot be stopped so instead why not use the people paid as a resource rather than seeing them as a problem.

I am not suggesting that that the government should employ more people.  I am pointing out that the government is already paying a large chunk of people and yet not using them.  That the government already employs these people if you like.


 

Sometimes I despair at the amount of hogwash propaganda people swallow, and then come back quoting it as the truth.   So the fireman made redundant were wasteful, the policemen made redundant were wasteful, the teachers, the forces personnel, the support workers for old people, the dinner ladies and all the others (you do know that a very large proportion of those made redundant were women, carers etc)?   As soon as you talk about public sector workers people immediately picture pen pushers.   Well even pen pushers have a job to do in supporting the people who do the work, but it was essential people who were made redundant, people who made a difference to other people's lives that councils had to cut.   Even the Tory party never said they were wasteful, they said they would no longer pay for them.    

So now they have made them redundant, you want them to do stuff like working on the roads for benefit money, undercutting the low paid yet again.

Beyond belief.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I know, it's flippin hilarious isn't it. Fire public sector workers and pay them redundancy money and then re-employ them again as public sector workers.

Never mind, they'll privatise it and companies like SphinxDidge Ltd. will take on the contract and fix all the problems with workers who have nothing more than a pick and shovel.

Never laughed so much at the irony and the idiocy for ages. It's been a good night

How is it hilarious to want to give people some work to do for the money they earn, how is that hilarious, only a brainless left wing idiot would think otherwise, thankfully some left wing people are not like this and who says it has to be a public sector role when you could get private companies to invest in this and even train people with an opportunity of moving on to a full time job. Yes I have never laughed at how daft you are Irn but that is a story for another day really  

Perhaps yet again you need to read what was written. Sphinx is saying they do this for their benefit money, ie employed by the government at less than minimum wage.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Perhaps you should try stepping back and taking your blinkers off for a minute.
You insist on trying to divide people into left wing and right wing then decide in your head whether anything they say is going to have any merit based on that before anything has even been put.
You are insisting on describing what I am putting as something it is not and then rubbishing people because they are considering what I have put not what you are describing.

Lots of people want to see some areas of the public sector reduced because they are unnecessary and wasteful. Money paid to people for unemployment cannot be stopped so instead why not use the people paid as a resource rather than seeing them as a problem.

I am not suggesting that that the government should employ more people.  I am pointing out that the government is already paying a large chunk of people and yet not using them.  That the government already employs these people if you like.


 

Sometimes I despair at the amount of hogwash propaganda people swallow, and then come back quoting it as the truth.   So the fireman made redundant were wasteful, the policemen made redundant were wasteful, the teachers, the forces personnel, the support workers for old people, the dinner ladies and all the others (you do know that a very large proportion of those made redundant were women, carers etc)?   As soon as you talk about public sector workers people immediately picture pen pushers.   Well even pen pushers have a job to do in supporting the people who do the work, but it was essential people who were made redundant, people who made a difference to other people's lives that councils had to cut.   Even the Tory party never said they were wasteful, they said they would no longer pay for them.    

So now they have made them redundant, you want them to do stuff like working on the roads for benefit money, undercutting the low paid yet again.

Beyond belief.

My god you do twist things dont you?

I have yet to see anyone supporting the specific redundancies you mention - people want the public sector cut in areas that are unnecessary - the fact that councils up and down the country ruled by differing parties cut in the wrong places is not an argument against cutting the unnecessary.

Nowhere have I said they should work for benefit money and undercut the low paid.
I have said they should work for minimum wage the same as the low wage only the amount they would get in benefits should be used to offset the wages bill.

Thus public purse is paying person £8800 a year in benefits.
Public purse needs someone to do basic job at £13,100 wage year.
Instead of paying separate 13,100 the public purse takes the £8800 and adds £4300 to it.

Now what exactly is your problem with having people on £8800 given work so they get £13100.

Forget cameron, brown milliband. Forget councils. The world has ended. We are establishing a new system. Which is preferable for people to not work and get a pittance or to work and get a bit more?

Really simple fucking question - would you rather the public purse paid unemployment or provided guaranteed work.

Why when holes need to be attended to the boss man goes round with a tin of spray paint, a junior could do that and then when the hole is to be filled boss man stands in high viz with extra stripes overeeing the team leader high viz less stripes but holding a shovel, watching underling high viz one stripe doing all the work. If all three worked together three times as many holes per day will be fixed.

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

How is it hilarious to want to give people some work to do for the money they earn, how is that hilarious, only a brainless left wing idiot would think otherwise, thankfully some left wing people are not like this and who says it has to be a public sector role when you could get private companies to invest in this and even train people with an opportunity of moving on to a full time job. Yes I have never laughed at how daft you are Irn but that is a story for another day really  

Perhaps yet again you need to read what was written.   Sphinx is saying they do this for their benefit money, ie employed by the government at less than minimum wage.

Oh I read the comical answers from the left and i agree with Sphinx on this that I see no problem in those claiming benefits doing a few hours a week for this money. They after all are getting money for nothing, so why not do 6 -8 hours a week for it, it would work out far more than minimum wage, in fact 6 hours would amount to £12 per hour for a £72 income support

sphinx wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:
8h.5d,12 months  £3028.8 for a year
minimum wage
Year                                21 and over            18 to 20 Under                  18 Apprentice*
2013 (current rate)          £6.31                     £5.03                              £3.72                                           £2.68

So yes i got that wrong minimum wage its worse than his benifit........... not much of an incentive really But he would  rather work

ps i did not deduct NI and tax so a lot less i guess

No you have presented random hours figures - A person working just 8 hours a week is entitled to still sign on and receive a reduced rate of  JSA so they are, all be it very slightly, better off.  This is where the UC comes in as the person would be significantly better off as the reduction of benefit is much much smaller.

What random figures :the rates are from the dwp web site .

ps
i did accept i got the calulation wrong or did you not read that far ??

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

How is it hilarious to want to give people some work to do for the money they earn, how is that hilarious, only a brainless left wing idiot would think otherwise, thankfully some left wing people are not like this and who says it has to be a public sector role when you could get private companies to invest in this and even train people with an opportunity of moving on to a full time job. Yes I have never laughed at how daft you are Irn but that is a story for another day really  

Perhaps yet again you need to read what was written.   Sphinx is saying they do this for their benefit money, ie employed by the government at less than minimum wage.

Perhaps you ought to read what is written and show everyone where I said work for benefits at less than minimum wage seeing as you are the only one who thinks they can see it.

Korben Dallas wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No you have presented random hours figures - A person working just 8 hours a week is entitled to still sign on and receive a reduced rate of  JSA so they are, all be it very slightly, better off.  This is where the UC comes in as the person would be significantly better off as the reduction of benefit is much much smaller.

What random figures :the rates are from the dwp web site .

ps
i did accept i got the calulation wrong or did you not read that far ??

I did see you say you had the calculation wrong but that was after I had already posted this (I read one post at a time and respond to it before reading the next because I cannot see multi quote on here)

The random figures were the hours worked - I thought you were saying your son was only working 8 hours a week which is random.

hey, I've got a great idea for saving money. Why not make every single person in the UK redundant and then get them to do their jobs for benefit money!   

You know, especially the ones that have already been make redundant that the country really needed, like carers and firemen and policemen and teachers and support workers etc. Save a fortune then wouldn't we? Fucking pathetic.

Sassy wrote:hey, I've got a great idea for saving money.   Why not make every single person in the UK redundant and then get them to do their jobs for benefit money!    

You know, especially the ones that have already been make redundant that the country really needed, like carers and firemen and policemen and teachers and support workers etc.   Save a fortune then wouldn't we?    Fucking pathetic.

Does this post mean you have indeed read through this thread and discovered that nowhere have I said people should work for their benefits or be paid less than minimum wage for work they do?

I will add to that -nowhere have I called for highly trained and skilled roles to be paid less.

All I have said is there are community jobs that need doing and which can be learned on the job within a day so why dont we stop paying people unemployment to do nothing and instead pay them minimum wage to do these community jobs they can learn in a day.

Now would you like to answer as to why paying people minimum wage to do simple jobs instead of paying them unemployment benefit to do nothing is a bad idea.

Because Sphinx, paying them minimum wage would mean they were employed by the Government and this government is diametrically opposed to having people in public sector jobs.

Sassy wrote:Because Sphinx, paying them minimum wage would mean they were employed by the Government and this government is diametrically opposed to having people in public sector jobs.

And I have said forget this government.

Or understand that the unemployed are already paid by this government - and will be paid by any other government so they can be said to be employed by the government already.

So seeing as the government is already "employing" these people why is it such a bad idea to pay them more and get them to do more work?

sphinx wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:
What random figures :the rates are from the dwp web site .

ps
i did accept i got the calulation wrong or did you not read that far ??

I did see you say you had the calculation wrong but that was after I had already posted this (I read one post at a time and respond to it before reading the next because I cannot see multi quote on here)

The random figures were the hours worked - I thought you were saying your son was only working 8 hours a week which is random.

Actualy
What i said was  8h.5d,12 months

that would be 8H   ...(hours  a day)
5D  (days a week )


for example
24/7 does not mean 24 hours in 7 days it means all day every day

But i understand the confusion
however that said
i still got the maths wrong

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:Because Sphinx, paying them minimum wage would mean they were employed by the Government and this government is diametrically opposed to having people in public sector jobs.

And I have said forget this government.

Or understand that the unemployed are already paid by this government - and will be paid by any other government so they can be said to be employed by the government already.  

So seeing as the government is already "employing" these people why is it such a bad idea to pay them more and get them to do more work?

This is where the right wing to get it wrong
The government is not employing people with benefit
it's giving them the very minimum needed to survive  just keep body and soul together so we don't end up like Victorian times with destitute people living in the streets as a result of being kicked out their home because they can't afford the rent or having their children taken off them because they are not able to provide enough for them to live on

Korben Dallas wrote:

sphinx wrote:

And I have said forget this government.

Or understand that the unemployed are already paid by this government - and will be paid by any other government so they can be said to be employed by the government already.  

So seeing as the government is already "employing" these people why is it such a bad idea to pay them more and get them to do more work?

This is where the right wing to get it wrong
The government is not employing people with benefit
it's giving them the very minimum needed to survive  just keep body and soul together so we don't end up like Victorian times with destitute people living in the streets as a result of being kicked out their home because they can't afford the rent or having their children taken off them because they are not able to provide enough for them to live on

How can a government "give" something it does not have?

What is the practical difference between the government paying wages and the government paying benefit?

How is paying someone £13,100 a year to do 40 hours a week work instead of paying them £8800 a week for which they have to try and find work  a bad thing?

For christ's sake. They are idealogically opposed to having public sector workers. If they employ them, they have to pay tax and national insurance. If they are going to employ them, then they should be employed in the jobs they were doing in the first place, before this government's idealology made them redundant, which were jobs that the country needed doing. As I have said before, fireman, teachers, support workers, social workers, carers, dinner ladies etc etc etc etc etc etc.

sphinx wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:
This is where the right wing to get it wrong
The government is not employing people with benefit
it's giving them the very minimum needed to survive  just keep body and soul together so we don't end up like Victorian times with destitute people living in the streets as a result of being kicked out their home because they can't afford the rent or having their children taken off them because they are not able to provide enough for them to live on

How can a government "give" something it does not have?

What is the practical difference between the government paying wages and the government paying benefit?

How is paying someone £13,100 a year to do 40 hours a week work instead of paying them £8800 a week for which they have to try and find work  a bad thing?

Sphinx, you said you wanted to get people back into work by paying then the NMW to carry out work like repairing roads and trimming hedgerows and any other type of work similar to that. That makes them public sector workers and there really is nothing wrong with your idea other that in the way you want to implement it.
You want to send them out with just a pick and shovel and not much else. No training in how they should carry out the tasks and no access to machinery that could help them to do the work properly so that it doesn't have to be done all over again in probably no more than a matter of a few weeks. Even your loyal lieutenant, Didge has fallen by the wayside and he now accepts that training needs to be done.
Just modify your position slightly and get some basic training and supervision in place for these people and give them access to machinery that will get the tasks done properly and I'm sure most people will go along with your idea.
Whatdaya say Sphinx? Go on - you can do it.

sphinx wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:
This is where the right wing to get it wrong
The government is not employing people with benefit
it's giving them the very minimum needed to survive  just keep body and soul together so we don't end up like Victorian times with destitute people living in the streets as a result of being kicked out their home because they can't afford the rent or having their children taken off them because they are not able to provide enough for them to live on

How can a government "give" something it does not have?

What is the practical difference between the government paying wages and the government paying benefit?

How is paying someone £13,100 a year to do 40 hours a week work instead of paying them £8800 a week for which they have to try and find work  a bad thing?

Who gets £8800 a week to look for a job ??

Sassy for the last time this is not about the present government. You hate them. You feel they are responsible for every bad thing in everyones life. We get it. Believe it or not there are people on unemployment (sit down this is going to shock you) who were not employed as fireman, teachers, support workers, social workers, carers, dinner ladies before - in fact there are some (this will disturb you even more) that have never worked at all at any job.

Irn I have only said sending them out with pick and shovel when that is what is all that is needed. I have said about an experienced foreman taking them out and teaching them on the job. I just do not use the term "training" for something that is done in less than a day while someone is actually doing the work. When I worked in a food factory (nigh many many moons ago) training was what happened in the classroom for a day teaching us about food hygiene and what was supposed to happen in the factory. The next day when I was actually put on a production line and told put the pies in the box like this was not training it was on the job instruction. Agency workers did not get training they got on the job instruction. Filling in potholes or picking up litter from the verges does not require training just on the job instruction. I am suggesting the scheme be run on the lines of an employment agency with turn up be shown what to do and get on with it.

Korben A single person in a one bed studio flat getting £70 a week JSA plus £100 a week rent and council tax benefit gets £8800 a year to look for work. Someone with a partner will get more, someone living at home less.

sphinx wrote:Sassy for the last time this is not about the present government.  You hate them.  You feel they are responsible for every bad thing in everyones life.  We get it.  Believe it or not there are people on unemployment (sit down this is going to shock you) who were not employed as fireman, teachers, support workers, social workers, carers, dinner ladies before - in fact there are some (this will disturb you even more) that have never worked at all at any job.

Irn I have only said sending them out with pick and shovel when that is what is all that is needed.  I have said about an experienced foreman taking them out and teaching them on the job.  I just do not use the term "training" for something that is done in less than a day while someone is actually doing the work.  When I worked in a food factory (nigh many many moons ago)  training was what happened in the classroom for a day teaching us about food hygiene and what was supposed to happen in the factory.  The next day when I was actually put on a production line and told put the pies in the box like this was not training it was on the job instruction.  Agency workers did not get training they got on the job instruction.  Filling in potholes or picking up litter from the verges does not require training just on the job instruction.  I am suggesting the scheme be run on the lines of an employment agency with turn up be shown what to do and get on with it.

Korben  A single person in a one bed studio flat getting £70 a week JSA plus £100 a week rent and council tax benefit gets £8800 a year to look for work.  Someone with a partner will get more, someone living at home less.

Ah fancy that, never!    I'm talking about the ones that the government deliberately made redundant, and that's what they were.

sphinx wrote:Sassy for the last time this is not about the present government.  You hate them.  You feel they are responsible for every bad thing in everyones life.  We get it.  Believe it or not there are people on unemployment (sit down this is going to shock you) who were not employed as fireman, teachers, support workers, social workers, carers, dinner ladies before - in fact there are some (this will disturb you even more) that have never worked at all at any job.

Irn I have only said sending them out with pick and shovel when that is what is all that is needed.  I have said about an experienced foreman taking them out and teaching them on the job.  I just do not use the term "training" for something that is done in less than a day while someone is actually doing the work.  When I worked in a food factory (nigh many many moons ago)  training was what happened in the classroom for a day teaching us about food hygiene and what was supposed to happen in the factory.  The next day when I was actually put on a production line and told put the pies in the box like this was not training it was on the job instruction.  Agency workers did not get training they got on the job instruction.  Filling in potholes or picking up litter from the verges does not require training just on the job instruction.  I am suggesting the scheme be run on the lines of an employment agency with turn up be shown what to do and get on with it.

Korben  A single person in a one bed studio flat getting £70 a week JSA plus £100 a week rent and council tax benefit gets £8800 a year to look for work.  Someone with a partner will get more, someone living at home less.

Ah well you have modified your position substantially from what you were proposing to start with so it's more public sector workers then. Probably even some that were made redundant in the first place.

Ok, I'll go with that providing there is suitable on the job training and they are paid the minimum wage and they have access to equipment and machinery suitable for the job.

Well frankly, as most of them were required in the first place, I'd rather they were given their old job back.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:Sassy for the last time this is not about the present government.  You hate them.  You feel they are responsible for every bad thing in everyones life.  We get it.  Believe it or not there are people on unemployment (sit down this is going to shock you) who were not employed as fireman, teachers, support workers, social workers, carers, dinner ladies before - in fact there are some (this will disturb you even more) that have never worked at all at any job.

Irn I have only said sending them out with pick and shovel when that is what is all that is needed.  I have said about an experienced foreman taking them out and teaching them on the job.  I just do not use the term "training" for something that is done in less than a day while someone is actually doing the work.  When I worked in a food factory (nigh many many moons ago)  training was what happened in the classroom for a day teaching us about food hygiene and what was supposed to happen in the factory.  The next day when I was actually put on a production line and told put the pies in the box like this was not training it was on the job instruction.  Agency workers did not get training they got on the job instruction.  Filling in potholes or picking up litter from the verges does not require training just on the job instruction.  I am suggesting the scheme be run on the lines of an employment agency with turn up be shown what to do and get on with it.

Korben  A single person in a one bed studio flat getting £70 a week JSA plus £100 a week rent and council tax benefit gets £8800 a year to look for work.  Someone with a partner will get more, someone living at home less.

Ah fancy that, never!     I'm talking about the ones that the government deliberately made redundant, and that's what they were.

Yes we have noticed that you insist on trying to talk about something completely different from what the actual thread is about and what everyone else is talking about.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Sassy for the last time this is not about the present government.  You hate them.  You feel they are responsible for every bad thing in everyones life.  We get it.  Believe it or not there are people on unemployment (sit down this is going to shock you) who were not employed as fireman, teachers, support workers, social workers, carers, dinner ladies before - in fact there are some (this will disturb you even more) that have never worked at all at any job.

Irn I have only said sending them out with pick and shovel when that is what is all that is needed.  I have said about an experienced foreman taking them out and teaching them on the job.  I just do not use the term "training" for something that is done in less than a day while someone is actually doing the work.  When I worked in a food factory (nigh many many moons ago)  training was what happened in the classroom for a day teaching us about food hygiene and what was supposed to happen in the factory.  The next day when I was actually put on a production line and told put the pies in the box like this was not training it was on the job instruction.  Agency workers did not get training they got on the job instruction.  Filling in potholes or picking up litter from the verges does not require training just on the job instruction.  I am suggesting the scheme be run on the lines of an employment agency with turn up be shown what to do and get on with it.

Korben  A single person in a one bed studio flat getting £70 a week JSA plus £100 a week rent and council tax benefit gets £8800 a year to look for work.  Someone with a partner will get more, someone living at home less.

Ah well you have modified your position substantially from what you were proposing to start with so it's more public sector workers then. Probably even some that were made redundant in the first place.

Ok, I'll go with that providing there is suitable on the job training and they are paid the minimum wage and they have access to equipment and machinery suitable for the job.

No not modified it at all - people can be sent out to repair potholes with shovels buckets tramper things (I have no idea their proper name they are a small square of really thick metal on the end of a pole used to compress gravel into a compact flat surface)and rollers. I have said that from the start. Just because you call something training that I do not and now realize I included it from the start does not indicate I have changed or modified my position it just indicates you have changed your understanding of it.

Oh God, round and round and round and round.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Ah well you have modified your position substantially from what you were proposing to start with so it's more public sector workers then. Probably even some that were made redundant in the first place.

Ok, I'll go with that providing there is suitable on the job training and they are paid the minimum wage and they have access to equipment and machinery suitable for the job.

No not modified it at all - people can be sent out to repair potholes with shovels buckets tramper things (I have no idea their proper name they are a small square of really thick metal on the end of a pole used to compress gravel into a compact flat surface)and rollers.  I have said that from the start.  Just because you call something training that I do not and now realize I included it from the start does not indicate I have changed or modified my position it just indicates you have changed your understanding of it.

You started off with Labour gangs and later it all went pear shaped when you came out with this...

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.

You have been jumping around like a crackerjack and the position you are in now had to be dragged out of you bit by bit.

They would be public sector workers and all you have to do now is convince George Osborne to sign up. I'm sure he'll agree no bother at all

Yeah I would still call them labour gangs and I would still send out with pick and shovel because the job can be done with that.

On the job instruction for 5 minutes is not training. I guess a roller could be called machinery.

They would be public sector workers the way people are agency workers. No permanent contracts, free to leave at any time to take up a different better paying job, no private pension or sick pay. Instead of holiday pay one week off with pay after each 4 months worked - non transferable.

sphinx wrote:Yeah I would still call them labour gangs and I would still send out with pick and shovel because the job can be done with that.

On the job instruction for 5 minutes is not training.  I guess a roller could be called machinery.

They would be public sector workers the way people are agency workers. No permanent contracts, free to leave at any time to take up a different better paying job, no private pension or sick pay.  Instead of holiday pay one week off with pay after each 4 months worked - non transferable.

Why do so many RW want to go back to the Victorian times of living.     

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:Yeah I would still call them labour gangs and I would still send out with pick and shovel because the job can be done with that.

On the job instruction for 5 minutes is not training.  I guess a roller could be called machinery.

They would be public sector workers the way people are agency workers. No permanent contracts, free to leave at any time to take up a different better paying job, no private pension or sick pay.  Instead of holiday pay one week off with pay after each 4 months worked - non transferable.

Why do so many RW want to go back to the Victorian times of living.     

Why the hell do so many LW object to giving people without jobs work at NMW?

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Why do so many RW want to go back to the Victorian times of living.     

Why the hell do so many LW object to giving people without jobs work at NMW?

....It's like with that voucher idea for foodstuffs that you lot wet yourselves over....You take no notice that it would cost so much more to implement, and electronic transfer is more cost effective, you just take great pleasure in the idea of humiliating the poor a bit further.     

You must know that people will only take being prodded all the time for a while before they snap...It could be the rich RW that are being humiliated next if certain histories are anything to go by.

So there we have it folks as far as phil is concerned giving NMW work to the poor is humiliating them.

sphinx wrote:So there we have it folks as far as phil is concerned giving NMW work to the poor is humiliating them.

Yea.

I'm more in favour of a living wage rather than a minimum one.

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:So there we have it folks as far as phil is concerned giving NMW work to the poor is humiliating them.

Yea.

I'm more in favour of a living wage rather than a minimum one.

No you are just opposed to unemployed people being given work.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Yea.

I'm more in favour of a living wage rather than a minimum one.

No you are just opposed to unemployed people being given work.

No, i'm opposed to slave labour and poor working conditions, and people not being given the right training to carry out a job, with equipment dating back to the Victorian times.   

But there are people out there doing that work with those tools for that money right now.

The vast majority of the unemployed would be delighted to take ups such a scheme if it were offered.

But no - phil says it musnt be allowed they must instead be forced to stay on even less money because working is slave labour

sphinx wrote:Yeah I would still call them labour gangs and I would still send out with pick and shovel because the job can be done with that.

On the job instruction for 5 minutes is not training.  I guess a roller could be called machinery.

They would be public sector workers the way people are agency workers. No permanent contracts, free to leave at any time to take up a different better paying job, no private pension or sick pay.  Instead of holiday pay one week off with pay after each 4 months worked - non transferable.

So there we have it. You would rather send people out with just a pick and shovel to do work that can be done more quickly and more efficiently with equipment that has been designed to do just that. That's just making people work harder and for longer which sums it up as making people work harder for hard works sake. And 5 minutes is nowhere near enough to teach someone to do the work because there is more to doing jobs than just pouring concrete in a hole and damping it down.
You really are beginning to sound like one of those gangers that would send Chinese people out into Morecambe bay to pick cockles telling them that everything is fine after giving them a quick shifty of 5 minutes on how how to pick cockles. You wouldn't treat the dogs that you love watching chasing foxes around the countryside and ripping them apart but you have no problem sending human beings out onto the roads ill equiped to do the work quicker and more efficiently with the means that are available to them
Says it all

Honest to God, beyond belief and the fact that Sphinx thinks its ok shows just how low we have sunk.

Sassy wrote:Honest to God, beyond belief and the fact that Sphinx thinks its ok shows just how low we have sunk.

You're right. Make them work and make them work harder than they really need to because some people just get a lot of satisfaction from seeing them do it.

It's bloody disgusting

Hand round the gruel, bring on Oliver Twist!