Weazel2006 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 If she has reached a point where they believe she is being bone idle about it and waiting for a single job to appear that fits all HER criteria then i believe she should be in some form of work to keep her work experience fresh. I am skilled with I.T as a technician, consultant and salesman but i am not just going for those jobs, i have retail experience, marketing experience etc so also look into those fields and work such as "shelf stacker" would also fit in with that search criteria. You deal with customers, arrange items of stock, take care of other duties as requested, have possibilities for progression all of which would be of equal benefit when working pretty much anywhere. Her attitude stinks to be honest, i REALLY want to land I.T based work but i am realistic enough to see that ANY work will be of benefit to me long term. Those who argue about how much it costs them in tax are pretty ignorant of the facts and figures. If someone is making forward progress and is going to interviews and conducting themselves in an appropriate fashion they are welcome to benefit, if they are going in there in their jogging bottoms and hoodies and talking like they don't give a damn then throw them off. She wont' have a leg to stand on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'd agree with her in principle. It would be a waste of time. The job is more a punishment for being unemployed for a certain time, rather than an opportunity to learn new skills. It also sticks in the throat that private companies benefit. There's plenty of public services that could do with assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'd agree with her in principle. It would be a waste of time. The job is more a punishment for being unemployed for a certain time, rather than an opportunity to learn new skills. It also sticks in the throat that private companies benefit. There's plenty of public services that could do with assistance. I can see there is certainly an argument there for these work placements to be with non-profit organisation to avoid exploitation of fee labour for profit. But I can't agree that her degree gives her a right to opt out of back to work schemes or placements in the way things stand at the moment. Her argument doesn't seem to be so much against WHERE she was made to do a placement but the fact she was given one at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 As much as it pains me to say this, this girl is clearly a barmpot, and if she takes them to Court, any Judge worth his wig would throw the case out and fine her for wasting time IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It's exactly to do with attitude. Going to university doesn't give you a get out of jail for free card entitling them to sit on there behinds doing nothing claiming the dole turning down perfectly good jobs because they think having a bit of paper behind them makes them too precious to get off their lazy behinds and do a proper days work. I think your brothers attitude stinks and I would be ashamed of a child of mine if they preferred to sit around expecting the state to support them when they were perfectly capable of going out, getting a job and supporting themselves. I've known lots of people who have done jobs in supermarkets, shops, bars or labouring on building sites as a stop gap between Uni and a proper job. Most if not all of them have gone on to do something relevant to their degrees but I have to say in my experience the precious little angels who sit round refusing to do anything beneath them often end up totally unemployable and unable to get ANYTHING. Whoa there, his attitude doesn't stink because he is not on benefits anymore he is in Dubai making an absolute killing but if he had done as the dwp said and applied for a shelf stacker job he wouldn't have been in dubai and no he wasn't expecting the state to look after him so where did you get that from? I think your and other posters attitude stinks as you look down on people claiming benefits and expect them to accept anything thrown at them. As for the little piece of paper you mention, how many pieces of degree paper do you own yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 It is slavery No it isn't; she is free to refuse. What you seem to forget is that there's no automatic legal right to jobseeker's allowance; you can only claim it if you're taking reasonable steps to find a job - such as, in this case, taking an unpaid internship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The government can't force her to work of course, but the government isn't, or shouldnt, be obliged to pay her benifits either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 No it isn't; she is free to refuse. What you seem to forget is that there's no automatic legal right to jobseeker's allowance; you can only claim it if you're taking reasonable steps to find a job - such as, in this case, taking an unpaid internship. But she is not free to build her own house on the land of her nation state, she is not free to create a factory, she is not free, she is but a slave. And she is expected to be called upon in times of war to protect her slaves status and the state which enforces this slavery. F that pal. The state is the enemy. Slaves were housed and fed. Pretty well looked after compared to the unemployed whom are FORCED to work for free and not necessarily housed and fed. She has no means of subsistence, she is denied the ability to grow her own food. She is no better off than a slave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 But she is not free to build her own house on the land of her nation state, she is not free to create a factory Rubbish; she can do both, if she just goes and buys the land to build them on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.