foxforcefive Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 They can decide not to do it. If they don't do it, their parents do not lose CB, CTC, they would still be entitled to free school meals etc. If they wanted to, they could opt out of school altogether and jump onto JSA/ESA at 16. So can she. She can also opt out of claiming benefits and working voluntarily, and find herself a paying job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 What are you suggesting I agree to at the moment? people are not given jobs because of things like this in place which only benefits the companies. it dosent help the economy in any way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 So can she. She can also opt out of claiming benefits and working voluntarily, and find herself a paying job. The other can opt out of working AND claim benefits. This girl cannot. Also bare in mind we have structural unemployment, and that the current land-tax-benefit system requires one to have £ readies in order to live. She has not the ability to raise crops, graze animals, cut down trees for fuel or to make furniture, she is in effect a slave and is being forced to work in a fashion akin to corvee but on the behalf of private companies for benefits denominated in a privatised FIAT currency which one is obliged to use. She is being forced to trade her labour under duress, and for no financial/material/moral reward. We could force everyone to work for their benefits/pensions etc. it would do nothing for demand though, these people would just become slave like servants for the landowners. It would lead to people being put out of work (by this free labour), and to more people being forced to work for free. It is quite an abhorrent policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordonb Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Does anyone know what subject she graduated in? Was it anything to do with pens/calligraphy/museums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Does anyone know what subject she graduated in? Was it anything to do with pens/calligraphy/museums? Geology I have a mate who passed his geology degree; to his surprise it didn’t help him get a job until him decided to become a teacher, the surprising thing is he doesn’t teach geology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 She has not the ability to raise crops, graze animals, cut down trees for fuel or to make furniture She doesn't need land to not have that ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If I was a paid employee at Poundland or any of the supermarkets that participate in this kind of scheme, I would be very worried. In a business which is all about cost cutting and profits, how long before my job is replaced by a free worker? The American Civil War was not about the Moral issue of slavery, but the fact that the South had a distinct advantage in being able to produce cheaper goods because of it. We seem to be heading in a similar direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I find it despicable that we are allowing companies such as tax avoiding Tesco's to offer these placements. When the Govt announced they wanted employment benefit individuals to work for their monies, i agreed with this. However, they should be working for the state, not stacking shelves for supermarkets. Its a bloody disgrace. A common argument for this (and with private companies), is that if a job is there, it should be paid for, which doesn't logically stand up really, because there are always going to be jobs that aren't priority for councils/governments/companies etc, hence don't get done. It is slavery as the state dictates terms and conditions of employment, not to mention all the subsidies to other organisations. Land monopoly etc. It is akin to corvee labour, but working for state benefits on the behalf of private companies. Man is not free to create his own employment you see. Slavery? So slaves don't get fed and housed or even forced to do degrading acts then? Slavery? What's with all the slavery comments? A slave is the property of something/someone. She can simply opt out of slavery by not doing it. I find the use of the word 'slave' an insult to people past/present who are/were real slaves, who couldn't afford to get out, and had little choice. i dont know what yts scheme you was on but nothing like the one i was on . first of all we didnt get a bus pass,no qualifications either, after the year was up you was sent down the road. You might have had a crap YTS ricgem, but that doesn't make the YTS system crap (whether in reality it was or it wasn't). If I was a paid employee at Poundland or any of the supermarkets that participate in this kind of scheme, I would be very worried. In a business which is all about cost cutting and profits, how long before my job is replaced by a free worker? The American Civil War was not about the Moral issue of slavery, but the fact that the South had a distinct advantage in being able to produce cheaper goods because of it. We seem to be heading in a similar direction. No we aren't. When she joined JSA, she signed a form that says she agrees to the terms. The terms state that her payments could stopped if they refuse to attend compulsory scheme. LINK, it's a long read so I've saved you the trouble, read pages 5,9,10,11,13,14,16,17, 25, 26,27 If she objects so strongly to these points, then she should not have signed the JSA form, and objected to the terms then, instead of receiving the payments, then objecting when she doesn't like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 There's an article by Cait Reilly here. She says her problem with the scheme was that she was told it was 'training' that would lead to a job interview, which it didn't. She says that she already had retail experience before she was told to go on the scheme. She also says that if a paying job at Poundland came up she would have taken it happily. All of that seems pretty reasonable to me. Making someone who already has retail experience and is in the middle of a voluntary placement in a socially useful sector clean floors and stack shelves for two weeks is entirely pointless for everyone except Poundland, which is getting free labour. Why on earth should corporations benefit from the unemployment problem? In her position I'd be pretty irked too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 so shes being forced then ? No more than you are being forced to work. The fact that if you stop you won't get paid doesn't mean force, force means you have no option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.