Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:57 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The site I work at has regular vacancies - minimum one a month sometimes more - we only ever approach the appropriate agency to find the correct person, how do these jobs get on to your list of available positions?

It's not MY list imbecile

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:22 pm  

There are nearly 2.5m people unemployed and 536,000 vacancies.
Some Eastern Europeans coming to work for a few months before going back home is a totally different situation to someone trying to live here permanently and bringing up a family.
As mentioned, what are all these people going to do? And how much will it cost?
Job Centre staff are busy enough as it is (an average time with client of 7 minutes). How many more job centre staff need to be hired to either see these people every day or supervise their work?
Will the state refund the extra costs associated with working 30 hours per week?
How many people will be made redundant to allow these jobs to be done and is that legal?

George Osborne had the nerve to moan about "policies drawn up on the back of a fag packet" and then produces this.

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:16 am  

Him wrote:

. How many more job centre staff need to be hired to either see these people every day or supervise their work?
Will the state refund the extra costs associated with working 30 hours per week?

They don't have to employ extra people to process the daily checks, barely any of the 200,000 targeted will be asked to attend every day but will instead be shipped off to "training" courses (like the ones that Damo used to describe) run by HM Governments choice of provider at a cost to HM Government.

Quite how that will improve the jobless figures or cut the benefits bill is a mystery but someone somewhere will profit from it of that there is no doubt.

A very simple solution would be to remove the waiting time restriction on re-applying for benefits if the unemployed person is willing to take up a succession of short term vacancies offered by any of the partner work agencies that the job centres now carry advertising for as the fact that taking up temporary work will cause you all sorts of hassle when it ends is the only thing that prevents many from going down that route - a simple rolling unemployment benefits agreement linked to one of their agency partners would suffice - they pay for the days that the person is employed, the universal benefit is paid pro-rata at the end of the month.

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:26 am  

cod'ead wrote:

It's not MY list imbecile

Grow up you silly little man - just answer the question if you can - doubtful but there you go.

The point is you are quoting figures as gospel that most reasonably intelligent people know to flawed, I offered you a very simple example of how the figures could be flawed - as usual you were shown to be incapable of rational debate. Resorting to insults as the flaws in your argument were exposed.

You find criticising government data easy when it suits your point but you take affront when the tables are turned - you are a very sad individual.

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:47 am  

While I don't buy into the current Tory thinking that all the unemployed are work shy scroungers, I do as part of my job (which involves visiting some of our most deprived areas) often see where a good kick up the arris might be appropriate. Only yesterday I turned up on Leicester Road in Dinnington, South Yorkshire at 8am for a site visit to see about half a dozen people (men & women) sat outside drinking cans of lager, this was the same house where they were doing exactly the same thing on my previous visit. The site manager has had nothing but problems, usually threats and abuse from the locals to his workforce from several properties on the street, along with multiple thefts from the site running into thousands of pounds. I have also, never seen so many mobility scooters in my life ( a lot being driven by relatively young people), I thought it was a convention.

Perhaps these sort of areas need more attention than forcing the people who have worked most their lives (only to find themselves victims of Tory policies) to work cleaning graffiti off walls for under £2 per hour.

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:15 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Grow up you silly little man - just answer the question if you can - doubtful but there you go.

The point is you are quoting figures as gospel that most reasonably intelligent people know to flawed, I offered you a very simple example of how the figures could be flawed - as usual you were shown to be incapable of rational debate. Resorting to insults as the flaws in your argument were exposed.

You find criticising government data easy when it suits your point but you take affront when the tables are turned - you are a very sad individual.

All the figures are from the ONS, they have not been manipulated in any way. Only someone of limited intellect could assume otherwise

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:25 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... The point is you are quoting figures as gospel that most reasonably intelligent people know to flawed, I offered you a very simple example of how the figures could be flawed - ...

There will also be vacancies in the stats that are no longer open, skewing the stats in the other direction.
There will be people who are seeking work who are not registered as unemployed.

But, based on those (possibly flawed) figures, there are five times as many registered unemployed as there are reported vacancies.
Are you suggesting that the flawed stats are incorrect by 500% ?

If not, then there are more unemployed people than jobs available ... which is the point.

Hence, we cannot say that all unemployed are feckless and workshy.
Hence, punishing all unemployed by reducing their benefit is only an unfair and crude cut in cost rather than the much-trumpeted targetting of the lazy buggers.

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:05 am  

Gideon gets better and better.
Yesterday he was bragging that they'll run a surplus by the end of the next parliament.

Anyone remember what he said before the last election?
Yes, that's right, that he'd eliminate the deficit by 2015, a prediction that has been put back each year, by a year ... earlier this year they were predicting 2018.

But now (fanfare of trumpets) they will produce a surplus by, erm, 2020.

Or, to put it another way ... the one parliamentary term of five years required to eliminate the deficit is now going to be TEN YEARS.
Great predictions Gideon old chap.

Also, he warned with a very stern expression that we can't go on mounting up debt ... but, for some reason, he omitted to mention that under his judicious guidance the debt has risen by about half a trillion quid.

At least Alistair Darling bought some banks with his debt, this berk Osborne has nothing to show for it at all.

For a party that is so determinedly against borrowing, they seem to be doing an awful lot of it.

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:16 am  

Just as well I have been honing my cooking techniques for all these OAP's I'm shortly gonna be rustling the pots and pans for.
Personally, I've found it more important to spend a couple of years with somebody I cared about who was dying.
Work hasn't been that important since.
Now I should have gone down the carer route but I couldn't really be fooking arsed.
Just carried on claiming my £70 a week single blokes JSA which is probably a fair bit less than I could have got.

Oh well, I am just going to pay for my sins now.
Best get out in my driveway with a hard brush and get my sweeping technique primed.

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:23 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The figures can only be correct if the agency is able to collect data on every available job - we both know that will not be the case - so that blows your first point out of the water.

I have stated in this thread that if you work no matter what the circumstance you should get at least the minimum wage. As for research if you look long and hard enough - and nobody will do either more than you when trying to support your point - you will find a research piece that agrees with that point. That is very different from being the generally accepted position.

So the OFFICIAL figures are wrong, are they?

Care to share the fruits of your own research proving that the OFFICIAL figures are wrong?