Get on your Hoe and look for work

[BrilloPad]

I would support this if there were plenty of jobs to go round. We are a long way from full employment (~500,000 unemployed).

At the moment the poor are suffering as wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a few. We are heading to a new Victorian age where inequality is rife - without the global success.

Yes there are some chavs out there who this policy would help. But plenty of others looking for work who would be very upset with Mr Tebbit now and wish he had been caught fully in the Brighton bomb. Clearly the wrong sentiment - but maybe he should give some more thought to his statements before going public.

[SpontaneousOrder]

maybe but then you have an exploitative economy where the desperate have to take wherever they can.

So having to work & offer a desired service in order to put food on the table is exploitative? The implication being that if it weren't for man's exploitative nature, food would magically appear inside his belly?

Cutting grass or cleaning toilets is ALOT easier than my job - so why should I feel bad about offering them alot less money?

[SueEllen]

I doubt he'd starve. I'd employ him to mow my grass for a few quid if it wasn't illegal.

It's not illegal.

You can ask anyone to do a favour for you and give them a gift of some money as thanks.

[d000hg]

they have an ability to choose their own job for a number of months, if she doesn't want to be told what to do then don't claim benefit seemples:

BBC News - Help to Work: New unemployment rules in force

That's certainly not what she was told. I was surprised because that's how it used to be. Quite possibly the problem is the staff then.

[SpontaneousOrder]

It's not illegal.

You can ask anyone to do a favour for you and give them a gift of some money as thanks.

Yeah. I'm getting my current clientCo to do the same. Makes a big difference to my tax bill - doing favours rather than working.

[SueEllen]

Yeah. I'm getting my current clientCo to do the same. Makes a big difference to my tax bill - doing favours rather than working.

Cutting your grass is different from you doing proper job that takes a full day.

Oh I forgot you live in a mansion....

[vetran]

So having to work & offer a desired service in order to put food on the table is exploitative? The implication being that if it weren't for man's exploitative nature, food would magically appear inside his belly?

Cutting grass or cleaning toilets is ALOT easier than my job - so why should I feel bad about offering them alot less money?

it is illegal for an employer to pay less than the minimum wage.If you removed it then large supermarkets and online book sellers would pay £2 an hour and urge the government to import people from Mars because they are the only ones willing to take the jobs. They do this already by hiring self employed drivers then ripping them off with deductions.

If the person wants to do that he can do it now, become self employed and offer grass cutting services, of course they don't because you won't be willing to pay a fair price. Because its 'easier than your job'.

As to Brillo's point of it being of limited effect I have had a number of people sit in my kitchen and say its not worth working I get more on benefits. Make it uncomfortable and they will be willing to work again.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Cutting your grass is different from you doing proper job that takes a full day.

Oh I forgot you live in a mansion....

I think dhoogs friend WOULD starve then, if I was his only client target of random benevolence which I wish to reward with a gift.

[vetran]

That's certainly not what she was told. I was surprised because that's how it used to be. Quite possibly the problem is the staff then.

there are incentives and a far as I can see they aren't properly managed.

I believe there is a 'Golden hour' (or 3 months) where the unemployed can be easily got back into work, after that they are more likely to settle on benefits.

[SpontaneousOrder]

it is illegal for an employer to pay less than the minimum wage.If you removed it then large supermarkets and online book sellers would pay £2 an hour and urge the government to import people from Mars

So is you problem with 'exploitative' wage levels? Or immigration? It all sounds very confused.
That was a rhetorical question.


But what I would (honestly) like you to answer was my question above which was this:

Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
cost of doing that can either be significant i.e. you put them on training, or medium : you put them on workfare or low : you pay them benefits and let them languish at home.

You've just emphasised my point.
It could read like this instead:

cost of doing that can either be significant i.e. you put them on training, or medium : you put them on workfare or low : let private employers employ them at minimum wage.
Why is it that the government is not happy to pay private companies to pick litter - thereby crating needed jobs, but they are happy to pay more in benefits for the same or less amount of litter picking?