Another reason to cut benefits

[Mich the Tester]

Surely you would say "Go pick fruit, and we'll give you a top up on your wages so that you're not worse off. Oh, and by the way, **** it up and get fired and you'll get nothing."

The only problem then is regulating the farmers to ensure they don't abuse the fear power they now have over their workers.

Would you like your business to work that way?

[vetran]

Surely you would say "Go pick fruit, and we'll give you a top up on your wages so that you're not worse off. Oh, and by the way, **** it up and get fired and you'll get nothing."

that would be workfare.

even Polly likes it

The Tories were right: workfare really works - Voices - The Independent

but you need to avoid this :

Workfare Row: Homebase Deny Using Work Experience Staff To Cut Costs

[d000hg]

how do you work that out?

£6.19 * 40 = £247 a week 3 months a year. Should pay for the wife & kids to live in a shoebox in the south east and eat once a month.

Um, you'd still be on benefits the other 9 months. My point was forcing people to work and then giving them benefits is effectively a prison work release scheme... great for the businesses who get free labour.

Tell them they have to work when work is available or they won't get benefits the rest of the time, but pay them a fair wage for the work they are forced to do.

[Ticktock]

Would you like your business to work that way?

Would I like my business to work in a way that my employees are paid the market rate for their role, but if this is below the amount they would get on benefits then the government tops it up, and if my employees are a bunch of workshy ****wits then I can sack them?

Sure, sounds good to me. What's your issue with it?

[lilelvis2000]

Another Tory brain wave!!!! Next up sending all foreign doctors and nurses in the NHS back home.

[Mich the Tester]

Would I like my business to work in a way that my employees are paid the market rate for their role, but if this is below the amount they would get on benefits then the government tops it up, and if my employees are a bunch of workshy ****wits then I can sack them?

Sure, sounds good to me. What's your issue with it?

Two issues; I don't think businesses should be foreced to employ substandard employees to help government policies, and I don't think businesses should sponge off the state by calculating that benefits can top up the wages. I find it ludicrous that people are getting more benefits than they could earn in a paid job, unless of course they are genuinely unable to work because of disability.

If your employees are workshy ****wits, yes, I believe you should be able to sack them.

[Ticktock]

Two issues; I don't think businesses should be foreced to employ substandard employees to help government policies, and I don't think businesses should sponge off the state by calculating that benefits can top up the wages. I find it ludicrous that people are getting more benefits than they could earn in a paid job, unless of course they are genuinely unable to work because of disability.

If your employees are workshy ****wits, yes, I believe you should be able to sack them.

But that's not what I'm saying.
Ignore for the moment that if I were a fruit farmer, then I need unskilled labour to pick fruit. A job commonly taken by teenagers / early 20s to get a little cash in whilst they go travelling in Australia (my wife and a couple of cousins all did it). Note the word unskilled - this is a difficult job to **** up.

Fruit picking has a market rate, like any other job. That market rate may well be the National Minimum Wage. If the NMW is below what people can get in benefits then it's not my job to top that up. Of course, wages are driven down by the ready supply of labour.
I agree, it's ludicrous if people can get more money by not working than by working - I can't see any justification for JSA exceeding 37.5 hours at NWM. By the way, it doesn't. Of course, there are people who wouldn't dream of going out and doing physical labour, even if it means more money, if they can survive comfortably while sitting on their arses.

[BrilloPad]

Surely you would say "Go pick fruit, and we'll give you a top up on your wages so that you're not worse off. Oh, and by the way, **** it up and get fired and you'll get nothing."

The only problem then is regulating the farmers to ensure they don't abuse the fear power they now have over their workers.

Tesco kicks the farmers. Surely they should be able to pass it on?

[Spacecadet]

Two issues; I don't think businesses should be foreced to employ substandard employees to help government policies, and I don't think businesses should sponge off the state by calculating that benefits can top up the wages. I find it ludicrous that people are getting more benefits than they could earn in a paid job, unless of course they are genuinely unable to work because of disability.

If your employees are workshy ****wits, yes, I believe you should be able to sack them.

Heavan forbid anyone should get sacked for being tulip

[Mich the Tester]

Tesco kicks the farmers. Surely they should be able to pass it on?

The other thing you could also consider doing is buying your fruit and veg from a local farm shop, if you can afford it; I know some people can't afford to pay a bit more for food, but food costs in the western world have become very very low since the war; that's part of the reason for obesity, but it's also pushing farmers in some parts of Europe to despair. Supermarkets can be real bastards in this; farmers who try price fixing will be hammered, but somehow purchasing oligopolies or purchase price fixing go unpunished.