Do people not want to work?
Discussion
ToothbrushMan said:
i wonder if the bosses of these firms would for that extra 15p?
i saw something similar earlier this week with an extra £0.90p an hour for a night shift over a day shift.
i dont think its because the employers cant pay more or cant afford to pay decent wages its because they dont have to or dont want to - the labour market is awash.
Not seen the market awash at all. Always numerous vacancies (partly due to poor pay)i saw something similar earlier this week with an extra £0.90p an hour for a night shift over a day shift.
i dont think its because the employers cant pay more or cant afford to pay decent wages its because they dont have to or dont want to - the labour market is awash.
ToothbrushMan said:
Saleen836 said:
Local care agency near me advertised positions on the local FB page with 1 weekday position available and 3 weekend positions available, they assumed that offerring an extra 15p per hour for the weekend shift would attract people to work and give up their weekend!
i wonder if the bosses of these firms would for that extra 15p?i saw something similar earlier this week with an extra £0.90p an hour for a night shift over a day shift.
i dont think its because the employers cant pay more or cant afford to pay decent wages its because they dont have to or dont want to - the labour market is awash.
I really don't understand how anyone ever even contemplates taking on this sort of job, especially given the money! I'd take it if it was the only job available, but is that ever really the case?
On the flip side, I would be inclined to ban benefits without a fair exchange of effort. There are plenty of areas where councils have had to cut services (litter collection, etc), so what's wrong with saying that anyone who wants to claim benefits should make themselves available for unskilled labour as long as they're claiming?
On the flip side, I would be inclined to ban benefits without a fair exchange of effort. There are plenty of areas where councils have had to cut services (litter collection, etc), so what's wrong with saying that anyone who wants to claim benefits should make themselves available for unskilled labour as long as they're claiming?
Podie said:
No idea what he’s paying, but my local MOT station owner says he’s been trying to recruit for a year.
This is quite ridiculous, but business owners far and wide are saying the same thing. I bet he sees extra labour as an increase to his cost base, rather than an investment. He needs to realise, along with others, that the labour market have options. This isn’t the immediate post-GFC world. The same small business owners were very quick to reduce their cost base via labour cuts when things got tough, but are apparently unwilling to reverse it now that labour demand is back.Invest (literally) a couple of quid an hour - so 15 quid a day more than the regional going-rate, and watch.
NWMark said:
You'd be very surprised.
House = free (rent and council tax paid for by benefits)
Benefits for 4 kids - 4 lots of child benefit (£65 a week) +child tax credit (£225 per week) + income support. (£75)
If the disability living allowance isn't being used for one car and is on the higher rate for both care and mobility = £145 a week
Roughly £26.5k in cold hard cash tax free per year and a free house.before the CSA payments from the fathers
4 kids to 3 fathers lets say she is still with the last dad, so she gets a minimum of 2 lots of CSA, This is not taken into account for any of the above benefit assessments
Lets say the two dads earn 30k, have the kids 1-2 nights a week she'll get another £57 x2 a week = £6k in CSA payments
I presume her new partner works? So she wouldn’t receive HB or council tax credit. House = free (rent and council tax paid for by benefits)
Benefits for 4 kids - 4 lots of child benefit (£65 a week) +child tax credit (£225 per week) + income support. (£75)
If the disability living allowance isn't being used for one car and is on the higher rate for both care and mobility = £145 a week
Roughly £26.5k in cold hard cash tax free per year and a free house.before the CSA payments from the fathers
4 kids to 3 fathers lets say she is still with the last dad, so she gets a minimum of 2 lots of CSA, This is not taken into account for any of the above benefit assessments
Lets say the two dads earn 30k, have the kids 1-2 nights a week she'll get another £57 x2 a week = £6k in CSA payments
She also wouldn’t get that amount in child tax credits if she is receiving DLA and her partner is working.
Depending on when the children were born, you can only claim tax credits for the first two children anyway.
Again, she wouldn’t get income support if her partner is working.
Is costs 43,000 a year to raise 4 kids.
Don’t get me started on CSA - 2 dads paying 3k a year for their kids! Talk about paying the minimum! Someone has to fill that gap....!
Whilst the benefits system is flawed, the amount of misinformation and daily mail articles touting massive amounts of money people apparently receive doesn’t help!
Don’t get me started on CSA - 2 dads paying 3k a year for their kids! Talk about paying the minimum! Someone has to fill that gap....!
Maybe if ex partners were willing to actually contribute a decent amount to the person raising their kids, then benefits wouldn’t have to fill the financial gap?
Have you ever tried getting a part time job that fits around school hours? Or taken 3 weeks off work because the schools insist on doing 3 weeks of 2 hours a day?
For the record, I am a guy! I pay double the CMA minimum payment (it’s minimum for a reason) I pay for all his school uniform and extra curricular activities. Also, my partner has 2 children. So I pay for the house we live in, pay for everything for her girls too (her wages cover the nursery fees. That’s it) because we don’t get any support due to my wage.
If you aren’t happy with the money the government is paying out in providing a house, food and someone to care for your child, I am 100% sure they would be willing to let you pay for it instead
Kermit power said:
I really don't understand how anyone ever even contemplates taking on this sort of job, especially given the money! I'd take it if it was the only job available, but is that ever really the case?
On the flip side, I would be inclined to ban benefits without a fair exchange of effort. There are plenty of areas where councils have had to cut services (litter collection, etc), so what's wrong with saying that anyone who wants to claim benefits should make themselves available for unskilled labour as long as they're claiming?
agree 100%, something for nothing is the definition of parasitic, but remember when camaron tried some sort of work experience idea for people who claim they cant get employment through not having work experience, the lefty sabatants were screaming slave labour. On the flip side, I would be inclined to ban benefits without a fair exchange of effort. There are plenty of areas where councils have had to cut services (litter collection, etc), so what's wrong with saying that anyone who wants to claim benefits should make themselves available for unskilled labour as long as they're claiming?
Ironic as pooling available labour to help the community would pretty much be socialism by definition, but only if a labour-branded politician tries it mind you.
Kermit power said:
On the flip side, I would be inclined to ban benefits without a fair exchange of effort. There are plenty of areas where councils have had to cut services (litter collection, etc), so what's wrong with saying that anyone who wants to claim benefits should make themselves available for unskilled labour as long as they're claiming?
This in spades. Teddy Lop said:
but remember when camaron tried some sort of work experience idea for people who claim they cant get employment through not having work experience, the lefty sabatants were screaming slave labour.
It's not slave labour if they are being paid benefits to do it though. No reason the number of hours you have to put in cannot be set such that the remuneration in benefits is at least equivalent to NMW.Moonhawk said:
Teddy Lop said:
but remember when camaron tried some sort of work experience idea for people who claim they cant get employment through not having work experience, the lefty sabatants were screaming slave labour.
It's not slave labour if they are being paid benefits to do it though. No reason the number of hours you have to put in cannot be set such that the remuneration in benefits is at least equivalent to NMW.They kept ‘employing’ JSA people rather than actually hiring people. Why pay staff when you can get them from free?
Christmassss said:
Moonhawk said:
Teddy Lop said:
but remember when camaron tried some sort of work experience idea for people who claim they cant get employment through not having work experience, the lefty sabatants were screaming slave labour.
It's not slave labour if they are being paid benefits to do it though. No reason the number of hours you have to put in cannot be set such that the remuneration in benefits is at least equivalent to NMW.They kept ‘employing’ JSA people rather than actually hiring people. Why pay staff when you can get them from free?
That's a fixable problem.
Christmassss said:
Don’t get me started on CSA - 2 dads paying 3k a year for their kids! Talk about paying the minimum! Someone has to fill that gap....!
Maybe if ex partners were willing to actually contribute a decent amount to the person raising their kids, then benefits wouldn’t have to fill the financial gap?
I don't think benefits do fill the gap - as I understand it, benefits, including tax credits, aren't affected by child support payments. Which does seem quite odd.Maybe if ex partners were willing to actually contribute a decent amount to the person raising their kids, then benefits wouldn’t have to fill the financial gap?
Teddy Lop said:
Christmassss said:
Moonhawk said:
Teddy Lop said:
but remember when camaron tried some sort of work experience idea for people who claim they cant get employment through not having work experience, the lefty sabatants were screaming slave labour.
It's not slave labour if they are being paid benefits to do it though. No reason the number of hours you have to put in cannot be set such that the remuneration in benefits is at least equivalent to NMW.They kept ‘employing’ JSA people rather than actually hiring people. Why pay staff when you can get them from free?
That's a fixable problem.
Christmassss said:
Would love to hear how, I could sell the solution to the companies who run the work program
you charge business at a rate that still keeps them viable, limit the % they can employ in relation to workforce, limit how long they can work there before biz has to employ/reject, loads of options if you think about it. Of course there will be businesses, like there are people, that will abuse a free resource if you allow themSheepshanks said:
Christmassss said:
Don’t get me started on CSA - 2 dads paying 3k a year for their kids! Talk about paying the minimum! Someone has to fill that gap....!
Maybe if ex partners were willing to actually contribute a decent amount to the person raising their kids, then benefits wouldn’t have to fill the financial gap?
I don't think benefits do fill the gap - as I understand it, benefits, including tax credits, aren't affected by child support payments. Which does seem quite odd.Maybe if ex partners were willing to actually contribute a decent amount to the person raising their kids, then benefits wouldn’t have to fill the financial gap?
The minimum payment from CMA is for clothes, food and every day items. The benefits are to put a roof over their head and all the things that that entails. My point was, if ex partners were willing to actually pay a decent amount of money to support their offspring, then the benefits agencies could reduce the amount they have to pay out
Teddy Lop said:
Christmassss said:
Would love to hear how, I could sell the solution to the companies who run the work program
you charge business at a rate that still keeps them viable, limit the % they can employ in relation to workforce, limit how long they can work there before biz has to employ/reject, loads of options if you think about it. Of course there will be businesses, like there are people, that will abuse a free resource if you allow themThe best I ever got was to get Morrison’s and the range to agree to employee a certain percentage of JSA/ESA people when they opened 2 new stores. All voluntarily as the government can’t control employment choices for private companies.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff