spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 There's an enormous difference between selling your labour and being forced to provide labour for free- and it is for free, because we've been happy to pay them JSA without the need for them to work. We provide JSA as a collective society to all who need it because we have compassion and a historic knowledge that capitalism fails on a regular basis. Corporations are taking advantage of that compassion, just as fraudulent claimers take advantage of it, by using the money that we provide to keep people fed and housed whilst proffiting from that person's labour at very low cost to themselves. In that sense it's even worse than African slavery because the slave owner fed and housed his slaves at his own expense, today corporations want the rest of society to do that for them! But these companies are taking on the burden for us and the ex-offenders. They are getting money, experience, probably housing too. Your relation to "African slavery" is preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Released Prisoners - Work Programme Many of these people are vulnerable with poor social skills, low levels of literacy, substance issues and other behavioural problems. Is turning them into slaves going to help them? I can see disaster written all over this. These Tories have absolutely no idea. Totally out of touch. Well them being ferrel didn't help them or us before really, did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I do hope you aren't suggesting that JSA and other benefits are a perfectly acceptable substitute to the National Minimum Wage? If a person over the age of 21 is working they are entitled to be paid an hourly rate of £6.08 per hour. Not to do so is exploitation, pure and simple. The national minimum wage is for people employed by companies. It does not apply to the self employed, so why should it apply to the unemployed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 But these companies are taking on the burden for us and the ex-offenders. They are getting money, experience, probably housing too. Your relation to "African slavery" is preposterous. So what do you think will happen once these corporations become addicted to free labour? Think they'll just give up on it? When? In a few months, a few years, once the economy's improved? Or will they lobby to continue to expand this pool- ensuring that their new found 'free' profit isn't lost, but is rather grown, because we all know how good profit growth looks for shareholders! And what's preposterous is multi-billion pound corporations profitting from social welfare programs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 There's an enormous difference between selling your labour and being forced to provide labour for free- and it is for free, because we've been happy to pay them JSA without the need for them to work. We provide JSA as a collective society to all who need it because we have compassion and a historic knowledge that capitalism fails on a regular basis. Corporations are taking advantage of that compassion, just as fraudulent claimers take advantage of it, by using the money that we provide to keep people fed and housed whilst proffiting from that person's labour at very low cost to themselves. In that sense it's even worse than African slavery because the slave owner fed and housed his slaves at his own expense, today corporations want the rest of society to do that for them! No we're not happy to pay them JSA without the need to work. JSA is exactly that, a tax on us given to them to allow unemployed people to find work. If demonstrating that they can actually work for a few weeks part time is beyond or beneath them then clearly JSA is not for them. They are not job seekers if they regard doing work experience as "slavery". As for the rest, comparing asking someone would they mind awfully doing a work experience placement for a few weeks with the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade is beyond contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 No we're not happy to pay them JSA without the need to work. JSA is exactly that, a tax on us given to them to allow unemployed people to find work. If demonstrating that they can actually work for a few weeks part time is beyond or beneath them then clearly JSA is not for them. They are not job seekers if they regard doing work experience as "slavery". As for the rest, comparing asking someone would they mind awfully doing a work experience placement for a few weeks with the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade is beyond contempt. JSA has been offered to those LOOKING for work not to those who are working for free (unless voluntarily over a few days a week)- you just said it yourself. You can try to dress this wolf up as a sheep all you like andygardner, but slavery is slavery no matter how sweetly someone's forced into it. I've given you a definition, but you seem to have ignored the dictionary as it doesn't fit your right-wing ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 JSA has been offered to those LOOKING for work not to those who are working for free (unless voluntarily over a few days a week)- you just said it yourself. You can try to dress this wolf up as a sheep all you like andygardner, but slavery is slavery no matter how sweetly someone's forced into it. I've given you a definition, but you seem to have ignored the dictionary as it doesn't fit your right-wing ideology. Given two long term unemployed people, one of whom had recently done a work placement organised for them and had worked hard, shown enthusiasm and a really good attitude and the other who had just been unemployed for a long time - which would you choose to interview for a vacancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 So what do you think will happen once these corporations become addicted to free labour? Think they'll just give up on it? When? In a few months, a few years, once the economy's improved? Or will they lobby to continue to expand this pool- ensuring that their new found 'free' profit isn't lost, but is rather grown, because we all know how good profit growth looks for shareholders! And what's preposterous is multi-billion pound corporations profitting from social welfare programs! I love your sensationalism. You do it instead then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 13 years... you don't have to mention it do you? Is it five years you are supposed to declare it. Certain positions do require full disclosure, but they are positions of serious responsibility. My last conviction will never be spent as I got more than 2.5yrs prison time so I have to declare it, failure to do so is reason for dismisal if I get found out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 My last conviction will never be spent as I got more than 2.5yrs prison time so I have to declare it, failure to do so is reason for dismisal if I get found out. You might have missed my earlier post in response to yours but I think this is being looked at seriously in terms of upping the number of years sentanced for convictions that cannot be spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.