Britain outside the EU

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I hope so. That's what governments are for - protect and develop the economy.

Is this the Tony Benn appreciation thread? Margaret Thatcher would be spinning in her grave to hear such words uttered!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Is this the Tony Benn appreciation thread? Margaret Thatcher would be spinning in her grave to hear such words uttered!

Hardly. The government has a duty to help develop manufacturing industries for exactly the same reasons as the support they provided during CV. It will cost the taxpayer, but otherwise they would have died or withered.

But I’m sure you appreciate all that, really.

There’s several miles of clear blue water between Margaret Thatcher and Tony Benn when it comes to what they believed was necessary to best protect the economy. Benn believed in State ownership of just about everything and he wasn’t against the idea of price controls. Thatcher believed the economy did best when fully exposed to market forces. She sold industries that had been state owned and only introduced significant regulation in instances where that left consumers vulnerable to lack of competition.

[Carth]

Pea pulling, spud picking, sprouts, strawberries, flowers etc etc . . .

Plenty of so called 'casual' work used to be done by students in need of a few bob . . and I bet a few of you can remember local women (and kids) being bused out to farms to do picking

Time moves on though and students, women, and kids now have no time to spare during their daily time consuming mix of daytime TV, Facebook, online shopping etc etc

The really sad part about the story though, is that the idiot jumped into bed with the supermarkets and is probably now finding that it's a lumpy bed that squeaks and rattles loudly, costing more than it's worth


edit: Of course, it didn't help when the Govt. and HMRC took away the fun of cash in hand payments too

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Carth

Pea pulling, spud picking, sprouts, strawberries, flowers etc etc . . .

Plenty of so called 'casual' work used to be done by students in need of a few bob . . and I bet a few of you can remember local women (and kids) being bused out to farms to do picking

Time moves on though and students, women, and kids now have no time to spare during their daily time consuming mix of daytime TV, Facebook, online shopping etc etc

The really sad part about the story though, is that the idiot jumped into bed with the supermarkets and is probably now finding that it's a lumpy bed that squeaks and rattles loudly, costing more than it's worth


edit: Of course, it didn't help when the Govt. and HMRC took away the fun of cash in hand payments too

If kids are told that if they don't work hard at school, they will end up doing menial work and therefore somehow a failure, you can't really blame them for not being overexcited at the prospect of doing said menial work. See also cooks, cleaners, waiting staff, etc.

The only ways out of that vicious cycle is to either remove the stigma of doing said work, raise wages to make the work more attractive or the easy route used up until now which is immigrant labour

[Carth]

Could always think about reducing their benefits if they refuse a job.

Many would probably still get some benefits even in a low paid job, but I guess actually having to do something for the money probably contravenes one of the many 'rights' people think they have.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Carth

Could always think about reducing their benefits if they refuse a job.

Many would probably still get some benefits even in a low paid job, but I guess actually having to do something for the money probably contravenes one of the many 'rights' people think they have.

Sanctions, as they known already occur. Not just from refusing work either, they can be implemented for failing to provide supporting evidence that they are looking for work. (minimum amount of job searches per day etc.)

[Carth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Sanctions, as they known already occur. Not just from refusing work either, they can be implemented for failing to provide supporting evidence that they are looking for work. (minimum amount of job searches per day etc.)

oh come on . . it probably takes people 30 minutes on their £800 smart phone to prove they've been applying for 20 jobs they know they wouldn't have the skill set required to get.

Originally Posted by Carth

oh come on . . it probably takes people 30 minutes on their £800 smart phone to prove they've been applying for 20 jobs they know they wouldn't have the skill set required to get.

Not how it works…

My wife worked at DWP, and a few of her friends worked at the JobCentre+ - they review the jobs applied for, check they match the "client’s" skillset, and then do random checks to employers.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions…

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Carth

oh come on . . it probably takes people 30 minutes on their £800 smart phone to prove they've been applying for 20 jobs they know they wouldn't have the skill set required to get.

That used to be the predominant case but they have tightened it now, the Guvmin has just dished out a contract to REED (who have then subcontracted to multiple others) to get the long term receivers of UC (over 6 months) who are fit and capable of work back into work. Said third parties are also directly capable of implementing sanctions (via DWP) on those people who refuse to attend training, employment coaching, refuse to perform job searches at centres, refuse to attend interviews.


source: SWMBO who is an Ops director for one of these companies.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not how it works…

My wife worked at DWP, and a few of her friends worked at the JobCentre+ - they review the jobs applied for, check they match the "client’s" skillset, and then do random checks to employers.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions…

TBF it USED to be they could get away with that... as i said, significantly tightened now.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Carth

oh come on . . it probably takes people 30 minutes on their £800 smart phone to prove they've been applying for 20 jobs they know they wouldn't have the skill set required to get.

... 20 minutes on the £1100 smart phone.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

That used to be the predominant case but they have tightened it now, the Guvmin has just dished out a contract to REED (who have then subcontracted to multiple others) to get the long term receivers of UC (over 6 months) who are fit and capable of work back into work. Said third parties are also directly capable of implementing sanctions (via DWP) on those people who refuse to attend training, employment coaching, refuse to perform job searches at centres, refuse to attend interviews.

<SNIP>

That's my boy!

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... 20 minutes on the £1100 smart phone.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------



That's my boy!

If i start using 'perfidious' shoot me

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not how it works…

My wife worked at DWP, and a few of her friends worked at the JobCentre+ - they review the jobs applied for, check they match the "client’s" skillset, and then do random checks to employers.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions…

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

That used to be the predominant case but they have tightened it now, the Guvmin has just dished out a contract to REED (who have then subcontracted to multiple others) to get the long term receivers of UC (over 6 months) who are fit and capable of work back into work. Said third parties are also directly capable of implementing sanctions (via DWP) on those people who refuse to attend training, employment coaching, refuse to perform job searches at centres, refuse to attend interviews.

Strange then, how we have companies moaning they can't get staff yet there are hundreds of Govt. and private establishments that are doing their very best to get those vacancies filled, and applying sanctions to those that refuse employment

Obviously the 'sanctions' are of little concern to the recipients thereof

Perhaps the jobs offered don’t match the applicants skillset, and the employers don’t want to train them?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Perhaps the jobs offered don’t match the applicants skillset, and the employers don’t want to train them?

If the the jobs offered don’t match the applicants skillset, that would be down to a mistake on the part of the person sending you for the job

However, I freely admit the skillset & training required to pick peas/flowers from a field, or stack boxes of frozen fish fingers onto a pallet, feed freshly plucked chickens into a gutting machine, or even restock shelves in a supermarket are well beyond the capabilities of many