Work ethics and todays youth

[go4it]

3 meals a day, 7 days a week. 21 meals.

 

You telling me you can make 21 nutritious meals for 50p each? what about heating and energy used to pay for these meals? what about travel?

 

I think the last time I did a sub £10 shop was in the 1990s! You don't seem to be living in 2015 pal

 

Travel? Err.... walk.

 

There are all sorts of books on the internet. Even the Labour loving Tory bashing single mum Girl Called Jack makes meals for pennies.

[ubermaus]

Then go back to school and get some qualifications and a better job.

 

People have 11 years of free education in this country. They prat about then moan they have no money.

 

What about the vast numbers who work in service, retail etc. Millions of them doing needed jobs. Should they all go to school and get a better job? where are all these well paid positions they will be allocating? who will be taking their place?

 

Sounds like you who needs educating or perhaps just a bit of common sense:hihi:

Edited March 1, 2015 by ubermaus
....

[Fogey]

It worked perfectly well up to 2003. The streets were not littered with people living in cardboard boxes. There were not mobs of people outside every supermarket screaming they could not afford food.

 

Funny how people just seemed to deal with it. Their wage was their wage and they managed to live the best they could afford to do so.

 

Along came Labour and their union puppet masters screaming poverty on everyone. Suddenly everyone MUST have at least wtc to survive. Experts were suddenly reporting that people were "living in modern day poverty" Suddenly everyone must have a pay increase in order to buy things and put a roof over their head. Suddenly everyone is not able to afford food and must have handouts from foodbanks.

 

What's changed? Cost of living REALLY increased that much? horse crap.

 

More like people's expectations of what a living wage is has been totally blurred by the rent a gob unions and a fictitious minimum standard of living which includes such ludicrous things such as computers, mobiles, car, luxury foods, digital television and computer games has been created. Everyone thinks they must have X as a bare minimum and if they cant afford it, the state should pay.

 

Time to stop this madness. Benefits were supposed to be for those in GENUINE NEED. Low income is NOT poverty.

Stop the handouts and just watch how many working people suddenly realise that they CAN afford to live on the wage they earn. You know, just like everyone seemed to be able to do perfectly well before this failed idea came along.

 

It worked perfectly well up to 2003. The streets were not littered with people living in cardboard boxes. There were not mobs of people outside every supermarket screaming they could not afford food.

 

Funny how people just seemed to deal with it. Their wage was their wage and they managed to live the best they could afford to do so.

 

Along came Labour and their union puppet masters screaming poverty on everyone. Suddenly everyone MUST have at least wtc to survive. Experts were suddenly reporting that people were "living in modern day poverty" Suddenly everyone must have a pay increase in order to buy things and put a roof over their head. Suddenly everyone is not able to afford food and must have handouts from foodbanks.

 

What's changed? Cost of living REALLY increased that much? horse crap.

 

More like people's expectations of what a living wage is has been totally blurred by the rent a gob unions and a fictitious minimum standard of living which includes such ludicrous things such as computers, mobiles, car, luxury foods, digital television and computer games has been created. Everyone thinks they must have X as a bare minimum and if they cant afford it, the state should pay.

 

Time to stop this madness. Benefits were supposed to be for those in GENUINE NEED. Low income is NOT poverty.

Stop the handouts and just watch how many working people suddenly realise that they CAN afford to live on the wage they earn. You know, just like everyone seemed to be able to do perfectly well before this failed idea came along.

 

I supect that one of the reasons for unions being so comparitively weak these days is the minimum wage and better worker treatment generally. It removes a big chunk of the need to constantly fight for a pay level sufficient to get by. I remember being from a working class Sheffield household before 2003 was a constant struggle with my Dad in particular struggling to find work, and he definitely isn't workshy. I remember that you ate everything you could get your hands on in case there was a problem getting anything tomorrow. I remember my parents seriously suggesting I might have to give up on education to get a job and contribute. I also remember that mobs of people complaining they couldn't make ends meet were violently broken by the tory government using the full power of the state to put the poor who were willing to work in their place.

 

Its not that people didn't complain, its that people did complain and were them taught not to complain by means of a collective kicking. The benefits culture so despised today is a direct result of a Tory government dismantling British manufacturing to break the unions and reduce the power of the working poor. Then leaving several generations with little or no work to do and little choice beyond handouts to make ends meet.

[go4it]

Hang on a moment, a few posts ago you were saying that zero hour contracts were good for employees because they can choose when they are available for work, and now you are complain that employees want to choose when they're available for work.

 

Also what are you suggesting in your example of a young mum wanting to work, that a mums responsibility to their child is a lifestyle choice?

 

An employee new to a job should work whatever hours they are told to.

 

A year down the line, once proven, it is no unreasonable for the employee to ask for periods of time off, certain hours etc.

 

The problem is young people coming into a job dictating what they can and can't do. They should do what they are told to do.

 

I don't get what you are saying with the young mums? If they want to work they should work the hours needed. If this impacts childcare then that is where family and friends come in to help. They should not dictate to an employee the hours they want to work. A child is a lifestyle choice and should not be used as an excuse.

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2015 at 14:20 ----------

 

What about the vast numbers who work in service, retail etc. Millions of them doing needed jobs. Should they all go to school and get a better job? where are all these well paid positions they will be allocating?

 

Sounds like you who needs educating or perhaps just a bit of common sense:hihi:

 

Retail is a job but is often minimum wage.

 

Either they need a spouse with a better paid job, or they should seek retail management opportunities.

 

Some people love retail and fair to them. But those people that moan they are hard done to and badly paid should realise that had they paid attention at school they could have been a lawyer, Doctor etc.

[ubermaus]

Travel? Err.... walk.

 

There are all sorts of books on the internet. Even the Labour loving Tory bashing single mum Girl Called Jack makes meals for pennies.

 

So everybody in page hall should walk everywhere?

 

what about if they work in Meersbrook. Thats a 10 mile round, 3 hour round journey or maybe they can all find jobs in Page hall ROFL ROFL :hihi::hihi::hihi:

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2015 at 14:25 ----------

 

 

Retail is a job but is often minimum wage.

 

Either they need a spouse with a better paid job, or they should seek retail management opportunities.

 

Some people love retail and fair to them. But those people that moan they are hard done to and badly paid should realise that had they paid attention at school they could have been a lawyer, Doctor etc.

 

Fair enough so you agree then. You need a spouse or a better paid job.

[go4it]

So everybody in page hall should walk everywhere?

 

what about if they work in Meersbrook. Thats a 10 mile round, 3 hour round journey or maybe they can all find jobs in Page hall ROFL ROFL :hihi::hihi::hihi:

 

You miss the point.

 

I was talking about walking to the shop. Not walking to work.

 

You have a habit of mis-reading stuff and turning it into a hard done to story. Relax.

 

If finances are poor then people need cheaper accommodation. They have to factor that into their lifestyle. If they work in Meersbrook and pay £500 a month rent and walk to work, then moving to Page Hall, paying £300 a month will save £200 a month. A bus pass will be needed, £45 per month, so they are still saving £155 which can be used towards food etc.

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2015 at 14:26 ----------

 

 

Fair enough so you agree then. You need a spouse or a better paid job.

 

If you want to live in a 3 bedroom house with a large TV and 2 kids then yes.

[ubermaus]

or this http://www.livingwage.org.uk/

 

some employers are taking it up, which is the right thing to do in my book.

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2015 at 14:29 ----------

 

You miss the point.

 

I was talking about walking to the shop. Not walking to work.

 

You have a habit of mis-reading stuff and turning it into a hard done to story. Relax.

 

If finances are poor then people need cheaper accommodation. They have to factor that into their lifestyle. If they work in Meersbrook and pay £500 a month rent and walk to work, then moving to Page Hall, paying £300 a month will save £200 a month. A bus pass will be needed, £45 per month, so they are still saving £155 which can be used towards food etc.

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2015 at 14:26 ----------

 

 

If you want to live in a 3 bedroom house with a large TV and 2 kids then yes.

 

Do you know how much min wage is without subsidies? not much pal. Under a grand.

When you take rent, bills and travel into consideration I cant see much room for doing anything else. They would be better off on the dole.

[JFKvsNixon]

An employee new to a job should work whatever hours they are told to.

 

A year down the line, once proven, it is no unreasonable for the employee to ask for periods of time off, certain hours etc.

 

The problem is young people coming into a job dictating what they can and can't do. They should do what they are told to do.

 

So you wouldn't recommend that students take up zero hour contracts, so they could work around their exams for example?

 

They work for young people, 16-21, who have other commitments and want a job for extra pocket money.

 

Often these young people have another career in mind. A zero hour contract means they can take time off, particularly around exams to revise.

 

Hang a moment, you seem to suggest that a zero hour contract is handy for a young person because they can dictate what hours they can and can't work.

 

Which one is it?

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2015 at 14:33 ----------

 

I don't get what you are saying with the young mums? If they want to work they should work the hours needed. If this impacts childcare then that is where family and friends come in to help. They should not dictate to an employee the hours they want to work. A child is a lifestyle choice and should not be used as an excuse.

 

Parents have a very real responsibility towards their children that often means that they cannot work the hours needed. Very often they don't live in the same area as their family, and very often their close friends work means that they can't be relied upon to look after their child.

 

I guess in situations like this, if you don't believe that the employer should be flexible to help the parent earn a living, then the only option is for the state to provide for the parent?

[Bonzo77]

Bran Flakes were 55p a box last time I looked, two boxes would feed a family of 4 for breakfast for a week = £1.10

Milk is around £1 - 2 cartons - £2

Pasta, baked beans, chilli sauce, various veg etc.

 

Cut backs would have to be made - drinking tea without milk, tap water to drink instead of juice. You may end up having beans on toast for a few nights a week, but it is possible. People must adapt their lifestyle.

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2015 at 13:41 ----------

 

 

This is the other problem - people try to dictate to businesses when they can work.

 

Classic is the young mum who can only work between 11 and 2 on weekdays, and must be able to leave work when school call to say little Tululla has a cough.

 

People must take what is given to them, and adapt their lifestyle to make it suit.

 

No, businesses should be flexible and accommodating with their staff, or expect a high turnover of incompetent nobs who can only get jobs that offer zero hours contracts to zoobs. Ever heard of a work/life balance? I know your little mind thinks everyone should be a slave to the private sector or be a workaholic, but you're very wrong.

[tinfoilhat]

So you wouldn't recommend that students take up zero hour contracts, so they could work around their exams for example?

 

 

 

Hang a moment, you seem to suggest that a zero hour contract is handy for a young person because they can dictate what hours they can and can't work.

 

Which one is it?

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2015 at 14:33 ----------

 

 

Parents have a very real responsibility towards their children that often means that they cannot work the hours needed. Very often they don't live in the same area as their family, and very often their close friends work means that they can't be relied upon to look after their child.

 

I guess in situations like this, if you don't believe that the employer should be flexible to help the parent earn a living, then the only option is for the state to provide for the parent?

 

Which is why a return to workhouses is a really good idea;);)