Evil labour plan to force people into jobs/slavery !

[Happ Hazzard]

Those forced labour nothing jobs they push people on just to try and fudge the unemployment figures. Still, what can an unemployed person do if you stop their benefits?

It isn't forced labour if you don't have to do it. Why do so many people in this country have a major problem with the concept of working for a living? Everyone has to do it. If you aren't doing it, someone else is having to do it on your behalf!

[Anna B]

It isn't forced labour if you don't have to do it. Why do so many people in this country have a major problem with the concept of working for a living? Everyone has to do it. If you aren't doing it, someone else is having to do it on your behalf!

 

You've just answered the question yourself.

 

Nobody has a problem with Working for a living. It's working for free or half pay (benefits) that's the problem. In other words If employers are able to get the job done for nothing or on the cheap why would they bother to employ somebody?

It's easy to see a future where two people doing exactly the same job side by side, one getting paid in full while the other is receiving half that amount as benefit. Does that sound fair to you? It's happened time and again with various schemes. It hasn't lead to more jobs, probably less.

Think about it, if the man working next to you is only getting half what you're getting, it puts your job in danger too - might as well have two unemployed men working for benefits and therefore get your labour for free....

 

Why would the employer ever bother to advertise the job or make it a properly paid position when he can get it for free because the state pays it for him?

 

That's why so many people in this country have a 'problem with working for a living.'

 

If a job is worth doing it should be paid at the going rate. And that going rate is at least the minimum wage, not benefits.

 

While we're on the subject, why should people who work full time have to be subsidised by the state, ie taxpayer, in the form of tax credits etc in order to make a living wage?

Surely that should be the responsibilty of the employer.

 

Whatever happened to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?

[ivanava]

You've just answered the question yourself.

 

Nobody has a problem with Working for a living. It's working for free or half pay (benefits) that's the problem. In other words If employers are able to get the job done for nothing or on the cheap why would they bother to employ somebody?

It's easy to see a future where two people doing exactly the same job side by side, one getting paid in full while the other is receiving half that amount as benefit. Does that sound fair to you? It's happened time and again with various schemes. It hasn't lead to more jobs, probably less.

Think about it, if the man working next to you is only getting half what you're getting, it puts your job in danger too - might as well have two unemployed men working for benefits and therefore get your labour for free....

 

Why would the employer ever bother to advertise the job or make it a properly paid position when he can get it for free because the state pays it for him?

 

That's why so many people in this country have a 'problem with working for a living.'

 

If a job is worth doing it should be paid at the going rate. And that going rate is at least the minimum wage, not benefits.

 

While we're on the subject, why should people who work full time have to be subsidised by the state, ie taxpayer, in the form of tax credits etc in order to make a living wage?

Surely that should be the responsibilty of the employer.

 

Whatever happened to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?

 

Because no one could afford to pay a cleaner £40K a year.

[LeMaquis]

Because no one could afford to pay a cleaner £40K a year.

 

Plenty of people could afford to pay a cleaner £40,000 a year. Most Premiership footballers, for example. The recent trial where Nigella Lawson was a witness uncovered colossal loads of money being spent that Lawson and Saatchi didn't seem to miss. The Russian nouveaux riches ensconced in London would hardly miss £40 million never mind £40,000.

 

But that's all by the by. Cleaners don't expect to earn £40,000 and employers don't expect to pay it. So your example is irrelevant.

[Cyclone]

Because no one could afford to pay a cleaner £40K a year.

 

That's far higher than a living wage though.

 

Ultimately if a job has to be subsidised, then we are all paying that person more anyway, it's just indirect, but the money still comes out of the tax we pay.

[truman]

 

Does that sound like people don't want to work?

 

Don't people have to apply for jobs to keep their JSA?

[Supertramp]

Why are people on one side or the other.

 

There are lots of problems with the benefits system. There are lots of genuine claimants and also lots of people who really don't want to work, they go to interviews just to make sure they don't get sanctioned and then try their best not to get the job.

 

I think a phased benefits system would work where you get a decent amount for the first 3 months which then gradually decreases to having having a survivable amount after a year.

 

As with disability benefits/ESA there is nothing wrong with people being tested to see if they can work, there are lots of people who fake it but then again there are loads who are not. The testing system needs to be fairer, go back to GPs but with some kind of governance or on the spot checks, and there needs to be a limit on what illness/disability makes you unfit for work. I've worked with a double amputee, a lady who was at least 40st and a blind man who all went to work with no problem, obviously there are only certain jobs people can do but they can do them, and then we have people who are off work because of minor ailments which is not really fair on those who are overcoming massive obstacles to be in work.

 

The gap between workers on a low wage and those on unemployment benefits needs to grow. The reason there is resentment between workers and the unemployed is that they feel that they are getting something for nothing while the workers are out 9 hours a day for not much more reward, and sometimes even less reward.

[ivanava]

That's far higher than a living wage though.

 

Ultimately if a job has to be subsidised, then we are all paying that person more anyway, it's just indirect, but the money still comes out of the tax we pay.

 

Is it, I'm sure a family with 6 children and only one wage earner will disagree.

[poppet2]

so after all the stuff about the tories treading on the workers, labour now plan to force people to take jobs or leave them with nothing.

"Requiring the long-term unemployed to take a compulsory job or lose their benefits"

 

But where will these jobs come from?

There are already more people out if work, than there are jobs?

Are Labour going to 'create' jobs, in local government and the civil service?

[Supertramp]

But where will these jobs come from?

There are already more people out if work, than there are jobs?

Are Labour going to 'create' jobs, in local government and the civil service?

 

I hope not.