Cyclone Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 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. No she isn't, she's free to not trade her labour and not be given resources in the form of state aid. We could force everyone to work for their benefits/pensions etc. People do work for their pensions... And most do work for their benefits as it's just a short term safety net. 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. The policy of having them provide free labour to private companies might be questionable, but not on the grounds that she objected using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 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. That makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 There's an article by Cait Reilly here. She seems highly reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghozer Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Wouldn't forced or compulsory labour be construed as unpaid labour? in which case it wouldn't apply because presumably she would be getting paid! Not much I grant you, paid nontheless. Yeah, but there's also the 'minimum wage' issue(s) - which benefits are way WAY below. so, she might be getting 'paid' for it by being in receipt of benefits, but they are breaking the minimum wage law in that case.. It'll be an interesting one to see what happens.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Yeah, but there's also the 'minimum wage' issue(s) - which benefits are way WAY below. so, she might be getting 'paid' for it by being in receipt of benefits, but they are breaking the minimum wage law in that case.. It'll be an interesting one to see what happens.. If you tot up all her benefits over the time she has been on them and divide by the hours she was required to work over a couple of weeks, her pay would have been well over minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If you tot up all her benefits over the time she has been on them and divide by the hours she was required to work over a couple of weeks, her pay would have been well over minimum wage. Perhaps so, but if we are to treat the unemployed as such then perhaps we should do so likewise with other 'subsidised' individuals. Lets start charging a tax upon housing of some £25 billion per year, it's only £1000 per property. Let's increase it above RPI by 0.5% every year for a decade. Once homeowners/landlords have paid the 1/4 of a trillion £ back, then maybe we can return to some form of normality. Let's take stagecoachs's £340 million profit off of them and then remove all subsidies and charge them 1/4 of a billion for a century to return the subsidies granted unto them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Perhaps so, but if we are to treat the unemployed as such then perhaps we should do so likewise with other 'subsidised' individuals. Lets start charging a tax upon housing of some £25 billion per year, it's only £1000 per property. Let's increase it above RPI by 0.5% every year for a decade. Once homeowners/landlords have paid the 1/4 of a trillion £ back, then maybe we can return to some form of normality. Let's take stagecoachs's £340 million profit off of them and then remove all subsidies and charge them 1/4 of a billion for a century to return the subsidies granted unto them. If we take money off people that own houses they will have less money to spend and the economy will suffer. If we make people work for the free money they receive the country will benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Yeah, but there's also the 'minimum wage' issue(s) - which benefits are way WAY below. so, she might be getting 'paid' for it by being in receipt of benefits, but they are breaking the minimum wage law in that case.. It'll be an interesting one to see what happens.. The minimum wage issue does not apply as she is classed in that instance as a volunteer and knew the rules when she signed on. It states that she will have to do 2 weeks Mandatory work related activity or suffer what is called "sanctions," ie having her money stopped for a period of time. Having said there are ways she could fight it, see my previous post #67 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If we take money off people that own houses they will have less money to spend and the economy will suffer. If we make people work for the free money they receive the country will benefit. The people who will benefit will be the companies that get this free labour and the many service provider that get paid by the DWP the country will not benefit as these provider have to be paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Her article is very interesting and goes some way to redress the bias that the tabloids put on it. But one thing confuses me. She's already graduated, yet she says in her article that she already in the middle of a work experience placement she organised herself. That would say to me that it's just voluntary work and by doing that during normal working hours she is not making herself available for work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.