Jobless man refuses to get up at 8am
Discussion
JDRoest said:
There is actually a fairly straight forward problem to unemployment which is that the council employs a lot of the long term unemployed in exchange for benefits. For instance, bin cleaning, parking wardens, graffiti removal contractors, road sweepers and so forth.
It would bring down council costs, it would incentivise the unemployed to get a decent job, and the trickle down affect is that it would cost taxpayers less money.
No thanks i'd prefer it if we didn't have completely useless idiots emptying dustbins etcIt would bring down council costs, it would incentivise the unemployed to get a decent job, and the trickle down affect is that it would cost taxpayers less money.
Anyone who suggests this evidently has never encountered the professionally unemployed. They are utterly useless and would be more of a liability then a help if you forced them to sweep the streets
I was on the dole for a year over 20 years ago. I had finished University but couldn't get a job in my field (IT) due to number of applicants chasing each vacancy. It wasn't uncommon to get to the last 4/5 out of 50 applicants only to be told at the the 2nd/3rd Interview that 'sorry, but you've not got the job' - usually because there was someone who had:
A) A bit more experience.
B) Lived a bit nearer.
C) Might have offered to do the job at less than the advertised rate [?]
During this time I also applied for casual work (bar staff, shop staff etc), but as soon as they found out my background, they turned me down as "At the first offer of an IT job you'll be gone and we'll have the vacancy to fill again."
Eventually I got sorted & have been gainfully employed for the intervening years. However I recognise that what I went through back then was not uncommon & the same is happening again now, but much much worse.
It is not good when the likes of BSR refer to everyone in this position as dolescum scroungers. Presumably he thinks anyone who has been thrown out of work (think Woolworths, Comet etc) falls into this category also. Generally I found most people in the same position back then did genuinely want work, although I do accept that the margins have changed in the 20 years since and there are now more 'career scroungers' who have never worked in their lives.
I think the best way forward is to adopt a model that helps those that need it or have hit hard times through no fault of their own, whilst not rewarding the serial scroungers. I believe the Germans have such a model in place (someone will be along in a bit to put me right I'm sure):
You earn (for example) £30K a year. You are made redundant through no fault of your own. For the first year you get benefits worth your full wage. If you've not got a job after that they drop by a third (to £20k). And again if you're not sorted at the end of year 2. At the end of year 3 (when you've been getting £10k worth of benefits) they stop altogether & you are own your own.
This seems much fairer to me because it gives you a cushion to find something suitable (retrain / find another job/ go back to uni) without punishing you for something that wasn't your fault. In short : You've got 3 years to sort yourself out.
The other side of this is - you will obviously be on far less benefit if you were earning £20k, £15K etc, but if you were never earning in the first place (career scrounger and serial Jeremy Kyle viewer) you will also get same benefits as your 'wage' - diddly squat.
A) A bit more experience.
B) Lived a bit nearer.
C) Might have offered to do the job at less than the advertised rate [?]
During this time I also applied for casual work (bar staff, shop staff etc), but as soon as they found out my background, they turned me down as "At the first offer of an IT job you'll be gone and we'll have the vacancy to fill again."
Eventually I got sorted & have been gainfully employed for the intervening years. However I recognise that what I went through back then was not uncommon & the same is happening again now, but much much worse.
It is not good when the likes of BSR refer to everyone in this position as dolescum scroungers. Presumably he thinks anyone who has been thrown out of work (think Woolworths, Comet etc) falls into this category also. Generally I found most people in the same position back then did genuinely want work, although I do accept that the margins have changed in the 20 years since and there are now more 'career scroungers' who have never worked in their lives.
I think the best way forward is to adopt a model that helps those that need it or have hit hard times through no fault of their own, whilst not rewarding the serial scroungers. I believe the Germans have such a model in place (someone will be along in a bit to put me right I'm sure):
You earn (for example) £30K a year. You are made redundant through no fault of your own. For the first year you get benefits worth your full wage. If you've not got a job after that they drop by a third (to £20k). And again if you're not sorted at the end of year 2. At the end of year 3 (when you've been getting £10k worth of benefits) they stop altogether & you are own your own.
This seems much fairer to me because it gives you a cushion to find something suitable (retrain / find another job/ go back to uni) without punishing you for something that wasn't your fault. In short : You've got 3 years to sort yourself out.
The other side of this is - you will obviously be on far less benefit if you were earning £20k, £15K etc, but if you were never earning in the first place (career scrounger and serial Jeremy Kyle viewer) you will also get same benefits as your 'wage' - diddly squat.
Fazt said:
but were talking about career dolies.
I sympathise with redundancies and graduates, but not generations of "benefit thief's"
If you want to see career dolies get nothing then I'm with you 100%. I sympathise with redundancies and graduates, but not generations of "benefit thief's"
It just pisses me off how a lot of people class redundancies and graduates as dolescum.
littleowl said:
Fazt said:
but were talking about career dolies.
I sympathise with redundancies and graduates, but not generations of "benefit thief's"
If you want to see career dolies get nothing then I'm with you 100%. I sympathise with redundancies and graduates, but not generations of "benefit thief's"
It just pisses me off how a lot of people class redundancies and graduates as dolescum.
I've found loads of my mates jobs with other people that i know and would help anyone.
thinfourth2 said:
No thanks i'd prefer it if we didn't have completely useless idiots emptying dustbins etc
Anyone who suggests this evidently has never encountered the professionally unemployed. They are utterly useless and would be more of a liability then a help if you forced them to sweep the streets
Yeah, because we have real Einsteins working on the bins at the moment. If people don't like being allocated a job then we need to stop giving out benefits full stop. Job done.Anyone who suggests this evidently has never encountered the professionally unemployed. They are utterly useless and would be more of a liability then a help if you forced them to sweep the streets
littleowl said:
It is not good when the likes of BSR refer to everyone in this position as dolescum scroungers. Presumably he thinks anyone who has been thrown out of work (think Woolworths, Comet etc) falls into this category also.
You're just making things up. Ive never said or implied anything of the sort.Im talking about long term unemployed. People who have just lost thier jobs due to liquidations/redundancies are exactly who unemployment benefit should be for.
crankedup said:
blindswelledrat said:
crankedup said:
blindswelledrat said:
crankedup said:
Plenty of people will be thinking all benefit recipients are like Paul, which
obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).
In a round about way I think ALL benefits claimants are like Paul. Certainly applicable in the South East.obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.
blindswelledrat said:
crankedup said:
blindswelledrat said:
crankedup said:
blindswelledrat said:
crankedup said:
Plenty of people will be thinking all benefit recipients are like Paul, which
obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).
In a round about way I think ALL benefits claimants are like Paul. Certainly applicable in the South East.obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.
blindswelledrat said:
littleowl said:
It is not good when the likes of BSR refer to everyone in this position as dolescum scroungers. Presumably he thinks anyone who has been thrown out of work (think Woolworths, Comet etc) falls into this category also.
You're just making things up. Ive never said or implied anything of the sort.blindswelledrat said:
In a round about way I think ALL benefits claimants are like Paul. Certainly applicable in the South East.
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.
Tiggsy said:
Sorry...are there people with no legs who sit at home on benifits, because they have no legs???
Some...http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local-news/...
I can only go on my experience when helping with my brothers business. Just was extremely hard to get someone to work for 20k doing basic manual work. Due to attrition we litterally ended up with an almost entirely polish workers, who you could actually gurantee would turn up for work each day (ok maybe slightly still hung-over sometimes) vs people that would fail to turn up due to "sickness" (and then post pictures of their day/night-out on facebook), if they even had the courtesy to let you know they weren't coming.
And along the lines of people not wanting to work - there was a heated discussion in the pub recently with a 'lady' who was calling anyone who worked for a living a 'mug'. When she had loads of free time to do bits on the side, free money, free house etc. Rather irritating to say the least especially with the 'you f'ing mugs are paying for it'... I imagine its not all a bed of roses in her position- but how being on the dole can provide for someone to go on holiday abroad, strikes me as rather perverse (although that's probably the bits on the side paying for it).
One the flip side we had a guy who was some kind of relationship manager at a financial firm, made redundant, and for the months he was inbetween jobs he worked for us and as we were local - he had no issue with probably earning less than a quarter of what he previously did. But he seems like a rare breed nowadays.
I think a fair proportion would rather go on the dole than taking a job 'that is beneath them'.
And along the lines of people not wanting to work - there was a heated discussion in the pub recently with a 'lady' who was calling anyone who worked for a living a 'mug'. When she had loads of free time to do bits on the side, free money, free house etc. Rather irritating to say the least especially with the 'you f'ing mugs are paying for it'... I imagine its not all a bed of roses in her position- but how being on the dole can provide for someone to go on holiday abroad, strikes me as rather perverse (although that's probably the bits on the side paying for it).
One the flip side we had a guy who was some kind of relationship manager at a financial firm, made redundant, and for the months he was inbetween jobs he worked for us and as we were local - he had no issue with probably earning less than a quarter of what he previously did. But he seems like a rare breed nowadays.
I think a fair proportion would rather go on the dole than taking a job 'that is beneath them'.
Brother D said:
I think a fair proportion would rather go on the dole than taking a job 'that is beneath them'.
Anybody that thinks a job is beneath them is wrong, but it is what they are being taught at school. My daughter took a job at McDonalds to earn a few quid while she was at college. For a few days all seemed quite well, she had coped with a few of her friends taking the mick but was having a problem with the thought that she had failed and when I asked why her reply was that all through school she was told that if she didn't try harder or concentrate she would end up working at McDonalds. It is seem as the epitome of failure to have a job. Teachers should be telling the kids that a life on the dole is failure that not taking a job offer is failure but no fast food outlets are the measure of failure.blindswelledrat said:
ruz316 said:
blindswelledrat said:
I dont think you're nasty at all. Just a bit slow. And probably unemployed.
and your just a prickpunctuation police are out in force
t
truz316 said:
blindswelledrat said:
ruz316 said:
blindswelledrat said:
I dont think you're nasty at all. Just a bit slow. And probably unemployed.
and your just a prickpunctuation police are out in force
t
tSo thick that not only can he not differentiate "your" and "you're" but he doesnt understand the word "punctuation" despite using it.
But who needs to be able to communicate in human when you have an armoury full of words like "prick" and "t
t" that you can wheel out from your council-supported brain to bypass the need for having ever gone to schoolGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff