How unfair is this government to those who want to work.

[ECCOnoob]

Disagreeing with your posts on a public forum and providing a strong counter argument is not trolling. I have also said on several occasions that this is MY OPINION and you dont have to take it.

 

In answer to the some other posters questons:

I was made redundant in Feb/March 2010 and then again for a short time at the end of August in 2011 when they suddenly decided to move my department abroad.

 

No I am not a Norman Tebbit junior and I personally think these kind of remarks thrown against anyone who even slightly hints that there are one too many serial claimants is pretty pathetic.

 

and finally the "hard work" I was referring to was me (and many others) who earn just a few pounds above the threshold and therefore are barred to ever receive tax credits, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc.. We are the ones who see people sitting year and year living off benefits that we are contributing to with absolutely no sign of ever getting a job. Or even worse imo are people living in inherited or scammed subsidised council housing who work and earn more than I do. That one really gets my goat.

[Rupert_Baehr]

New technology and automation is also affecting that area too, which means less jobs in that area. There are not enough of them to take up the slack from manufacturing jobs in terms of manpower.[/QUote]

 

Yet the UK has to import people to fill job vacancies, because suitably-qualified people can't be found amongst the local population?

 

As for the 5 GCSEs at grade 'C' or above, that is equivelent to 5 'O' levels which could only be taken at grammer schools to which only 20% of the population attended following the 11+ exam.[/Quote]

 

5 GCSEs at Grade C or above may be said to be the equivalent of 5 'O'levels, but I disagree that GCSE papers are as academically challenging as O levels.

 

The number of people who sat 'O' level exams was considerably lower than the number who sit GCSE exams, but GCSE exams were designed for 'the vast majority' of students, many of whom have been told that "If you work hard, there is no reason why you should not obtain a Pass at Grade C or higher.

 

The school leaving age was increased to allow those children (who would otherwise have left without any qualifications) to obtain meaningful qualifications.

 

The rest went to Secondary Moderns and did vocational and technical qualifications.[/Quote]

 

Where they did CSEs, which were introduced for those unlikely to pass GCE's.

 

Suddenly everyone is expected to get 5 'O' levels (or the equivelents) whether they are academic or not [/Quote]

 

No they are not. GCSEs are not a direct replacement for GCEs. They are a different exam, designed for a different tasks. GCSEs (in many subjets) can be taken in two tiers: Higher, where students can achieve grades A*–E, or a U

Foundation, where they can achieve grades C–G, or a U

 

They are expected to achieve a standard which is set to be within the capability of that the 'vast majority' of students.

 

so is it so surprising that 50% do not?[/Quote]

 

See above. - Yes.

 

Either way, there will still not be enough jobs to go round.

 

When we were told in the 70s that there would be more leisure time because of automation, (remember that? 'Take qualifications in leisure management'?) we didn't realise that they meant half the population would be worked off their feet, while the other half were unemployed and desperate for a job.

 

I've no doubt that there are very many people who are unemployed and desperate for a job ... but not all of the unemployed are desperate for a job, some of them are quite happy not having a job. Those who are desperate for a job are not desperate enough to take any job - and not daft enough to take a job which would give them less than they get on benefits.

 

If half the population are worked off their feet, why are they having to work so hard? Is that to support the other half?

 

There may not be enough jobs (particularly highly-paid unskilled jobs) in the local area, but presumably there are unskilled jobs elsewhere. - Possibly in other countries which haven't suffered the 'curses' of technology and automation.

[willman]

re opened - this is a discussion thread not a personal attack thread.Please discuss the issue in question without personal attacks and name calling

[Obelix]

Cameron is exhorting people post Olympics to keep the feel good factor going and continue to volunteer in the voluntry sector.

 

I have to ask, if you're not run off your feet because you're terrified of losing your job, then you're unemployed, and the way this government is vilifying the jobless, and harrassing those too ill to work, it certainly wouldn't make me want to volunteer.

 

If there's work to be done, then I would want a wage at the end of it. And before somebody says that volunteering could lead to a job - it could happen, in a small minority of cases, but voluntry organisations are being swamped with people all hoping for a job at the end of it which simply isn't there.

 

If you are not currently in work then volunteering is about the best way you have of increasing your chances of getting work. If I'm faced with two choices to fill a position, and one has a training course, and the other has three months of volunteer work in a relevant role, then the latter will get the position.

 

Whilst training is good and useful, experience is worth a great deal more, and volunteer work shows that you are serious about the job, that you are willing to invest time and effort, that you can show up on time and that you can actually do the job.

 

A training course shows that you can turn up on time, not drool and pass what is generally[1] a fairly low standard to pass.

 

Don't consider volunteer work to be a route into the company/organisation that you are volunteering for. If they wanted full time employees they would be recruiting them - they want volunteers because they can't afford to pay you, so you give them free labour and they give you experience. That experience is very valuable and useful, so hawk that around other employers who are recruiting. It's very transferable - if you are able to help run the shop for someone like Scope or RSPCA charity shops that shows people skills - any position that demands people skills will take note of that. If you handle money as a volunteer that shows integrity and good accounting and cash handling skills - that is of use in many other places than just a charity shop.

 

Get the experience, go out and sell yourself. Don't blush about it, blow your own trumpet, because most people don't have this attitude and employers like it.

 

[1] I know not all courses are a doddle to pass but many are very easy and are almost worthless sadly

[Obelix]

Oh and as an example of thinking outside the box..

 

http://downloads.element14.com/raspberryPi1.html?isRedirect=true

 

http://www.raspberrypi.org/quick-start-guide

 

Get one of these, cheap to buy as these things go and build something interesting with it. Learn to program and code. If you have a PC already very little outlay is needed and the skills you will learn are immensly useful and relevant to a large array of IT and electronics jobs. It's another example of those that invest time and effort will get rewarded.

[Crayfish]

People struggling with finding work due to lack of qualifications may also wish to consider free online courses from Udacity and Coursera. These initiatives provide modular short courses in a wide range of subjects and are run by lecturers at Stanford and Harvard Universities.

 

Not all courses are directly relevant to the unskilled jobs that I presume the unemployed posters in this thread would be looking for, but taking any course would look much better on any CV than a period without either employment or education.

 

Some courses may be useful for certain entry level jobs or could potentially lead to skilled self employment, for instance Coursera's "Introduction to Finance" or "Learn to Program: The Fundamentals".

 

I haven't taken a course myself, but they are generally well reviewed by students. Learning curves may be somewhat steep, but there is no cost to having a go.

 

http://www.coursera.org

 

http://www.udacity.com

[Crayfish]

On a related topic, while government policies could be much improved, many of the problems attributed to the government are due to socioeconomic factors largely beyond political control.

 

Examples of such factors include massive and unprecedented demographic change across the developed world, increased competition for natural resources, and a lowered stake of individuals in societies and communities.

 

My basic understanding (simplified) is that during the period ~1945-1990 the developed world benefited from an exceedingly favourable global socioeconomic climate. During the period ~1998-2008 most of the developed world was essentially riding on credit and artificially inflated asset values invented by complex financial markets with political approval.

 

I believe that we now sit in a period of transition towards a deeply unfavourable global climate (again with some few exceptions) coupled with large household and national debts and some current overspending/financial mismanagement/corruption, an era which is likely to last for at least a decade or two. Furthermore these problems are currently compounded by enormous social inequality.

 

To attempt to predict the future, trends such as reduced availability of welfare funds are not likely to reverse in the coming couple of decades, regardless of government policy and ideology.

 

Advice for a good quality of life over the coming decades, unless you are wealthy or highly employable, is A) learn to self educate, B) learn to manage your own health, C) learn to live on less money, D) lower your expectations and need for material possessions, and E) do not expect or rely upon the government to provide for your upkeep.

 

Caveat 1: Forecasting the future is prone to uncertainty; transformative technologies and/or social changes e.g. a good form of cheap renewable energy, improvement of social equality, positive changes to public attitudes, changes to employment paradigms (e.g. towards more people being employed for less hours each, with acceptance of convergence and probably contraction in standards of living) etc. could potentially vastly improve the situation.

 

Caveat 2: This is a slightly pessimistic view from multiple possibilities, but it's better to prepare for the worst.

[AWOL]

You cannot blame anyone for fiddling the dole and shoplifting while the people at the top are so corrupt. There has been revelation after revalation since this unelected government seized power. The banks and landed gentry who pull Camerons strings are totally corrupt.

[Crayfish]

You cannot blame anyone for fiddling the dole and shoplifting while the people at the top are so corrupt. There has been revelation after revalation since this unelected government seized power. The banks and landed gentry who pull Camerons strings are totally corrupt.

 

Yes you can. Holding people to different standards based on their income level is inexcusable no matter which way the arrow points.

 

I agree that the net economic impact of corruption at higher levels is probably greater than at lower levels, but unacceptable moral failings are evident in each case.

[AWOL]

Yes you can. Holding people to different standards based on their income level is inexcusable no matter which way the arrow points.

 

I agree that the net economic impact of corruption at higher levels is probably greater than at lower levels, but unacceptable moral failings are evident in each case.

 

I disagree. I think that it is far mor immoral for a corrupt government and it's corrupt masters to starve people to death than it is for someone to take stuff without paying from a supermarket to feed the basic needs of their children.