Working full-time, fined by government for going on holiday!

[Mister M]

Im not, it's you who seem to insiste this women is entitled to a week/2 week holiday that means she is unable to attend her scheduled meeting. Im saying she can take holiday, just not while she is meant to be meeting with the DWP.

 

 

 

I stigmatised myself as people who are on unemployment benefits (not those or incapacity benefits etc) are a burden on the state. A burden is a "load" and if you think paying money to people who are contributing nothing back financially, as not a load on the state, you should take off the rose tinted glasses.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 15:32 ----------

 

 

You're muddying the waters again. No one is talking about pensioners.

 

What benefit to the economy do you think people in receipt of unemployment benefits make?

 

 

Well, many unemployed people volunteer their time to worthwhile projects in the community. When I was unemployed I volunteered my time - partly as a means to keep busy, but also gain skills in an area that I was interested in. Volunteers contribute massively to wider society as a whole, and very probably save the taxpayer money.

Okay you stigmatised yourself as a 'burden', your choice. I just wouldn't want you to apply that judgement onto other people who may be unemployed, underemployed, not paid enough etc.

It just seems a shame that in an era when we know that there are no 'jobs for life' anymore, that people who find themselves in receipt of state benefits should end up being judged, scapegoated, and treated pretty shoddily.

And even if, as you say, the unemployed don't make a wider economic contribution to the economy or society, what would you have done with them?

I don't begrudge this woman or her family a holiday. She probably works very hard, and deserves a break. If the state, through the DWP, can't organise itself around the new world of work where people are in work but don't earn a lot of money, or are on short term contracts, or zero hour contracts - then it needs to be organised so it does reflect the new world of work.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Mister M

[Berberis]

Well, many unemployed people volunteer their time to worthwhile projects in the community. When I was unemployed I volunteered my time - partly as a means to keep busy, but also gain skills in an area that I was interested in. Volunteers contribute massively to wider society as a whole, and very probably save the taxpayer money.

Okay you stigmatised yourself as a 'burden', your choice. I just wouldn't want you to apply that judgement onto other people who may be unemployed, underemployed, not paid enough etc.

It just seems a shame that in an era when we know that there are no 'jobs for life' anymore, that people who find themselves in receipt of state benefits should end up being judged, scapegoated, and treated pretty shoddily.

And even if, as you say, the unemployed don't make a wider economic contribution to the economy or society, what would you have done with them?

I don't begrudge this woman or her family a holiday. She probably works very hard, and deserves a break. If the state, through the DWP, can't organise itself around the new world of work where people are in work but don't earn a lot of money, or are on short term contracts, or zero hour contracts - then it needs to be organised so it does reflect the new world of work.

 

Many? So you can't quantify it. If that's your best answer, you really are clutching at straws.

[Mister M]

Many? So you can't quantify it. If that's your best answer, you really are clutching at straws.

 

Why should I?

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 20:55 ----------

 

I agree, but your annual leave does not HAVE to be 2 weeks long, which is the case we are discussing.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 13:06 ----------

 

 

That doesn't mean you are not though. I could refuse to consider myself a man but that wouldn't stop me from having a penis.

 

I agree, but your feelings do not have a bearing on this subject.

 

 

 

To be honest these two examples are plain stupid. The benefits to the economy for people to be educated is well documented and others with chronic illnesses cannot work and are therefore not a burden either.

 

Clutching at straws??? You're hardly in a position to judge others contributions to the debate with that as your evidence that people who are unemployed are a burden on the state.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Mister M

[Berberis]

Why should I?

 

Because you are using it to backup your point. If you cannot quantify what you claim is an economic benefit to the UK, your claim is worthless as well as wrong.

 

Clutching at straws??? You're hardly in a position to judge others contributions to the debate with that as your evidence that people who are unemployed are a burden on the state.

 

Yes you are. Its as plain as the red rosette on your lapel. You claim unemployed people claiming benefits are of an economic benefit to the country. Job Seekers allowance costs the UK £4.91Billion a year (approx). That's larger than some whole sectors of the British Economy. Do you think that "many" people volunteering results in a net gain resulting in more than 4.91Billion a year worth of work?

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 21:50 ----------

 

And you think you're entitled to an answer or something?

 

No, this is a forum after all and you are entitled to answer or not, thats your right, however refusal to answer a simple question, such as you are doing, speaks volumes.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 21:51 ----------

 

Are you pretending not to understand questions now in order to avoid having to answer?

 

No, I answered the question, unlike you.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Berberis

[runningman1]

Most employment entitles you to holiday pay, unless you are self employed.

?

 

Not zero hour contracts in a pub or it appears UC.

 

Are people saying that you should get paid leave when receiving benefits?

[Mister M]

Because you are using it to backup your point. If you cannot quantify what you claim is an economic benefit to the UK, your claim is worthless as well as wrong.

 

 

Yes you are. Its as plain as the red rosette on your lapel. You claim unemployed people claiming benefits are of an economic benefit to the country. Job Seekers allowance costs the UK £4.91Billion a year (approx). That's larger than some whole sectors of the British Economy. Do you think that "many" people volunteering results in a net gain resulting in more than 4.91Billion a year worth of work?

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 21:50 ----------

 

 

No, this is a forum after all and you are entitled to answer or not, thats your right, however refusal to answer a simple question, such as you are doing, speaks volumes.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 21:51 ----------

 

 

No, I answered the question, unlike you.

 

Not at all, I'm not going to jump through hoops that you've set.

In any case I don't see people as economic units - that's dehumanising and reductive.

I do know that lots of people put their lives on hold to look after sick relatives, friends and neighbours - and when those that they care for die, I refuse to see those people as a 'burden' on the state. As I said, it's dehumanising and reductive.

So you view the unemployed as a 'burden' - what will you have done with them?

I hope this lady on poor pay that has to be topped up by the UC, enjoyed her holiday. She's got a job, get off her back.

I work, I'm on a modest salary, I don't claim any benefits or top ups, I haven't been on holiday for 4 years, but I don't begrudge this lady or her family a holiday. Why would I?

In general, it's interesting that those who whinge about the nanny state and 'big Government', tend to be the ones in favour of the Government hectoring those on low pay or in receipt of benefits & making them jump through hoops. Almost like they get satisfaction from it.....

Edited April 19, 2016 by Mister M

[Cyclone]

Not zero hour contracts in a pub or it appears UC.

 

Are people saying that you should get paid leave when receiving benefits?

 

ZHC are required to provide sick pay and holiday pay AFAIK, it's quite a recent change.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2016 at 07:52 ----------

 

No, this is a forum after all and you are entitled to answer or not, thats your right, however refusal to answer a simple question, such as you are doing, speaks volumes.

You asked an entirely unrelated question about something I hadn't expressed an opinion on in order to try to prove some kind of point.

 

No, I answered the question, unlike you.

 

Errr, you answered a different question to the one that was asked. Either deliberately or by accident.

[Berberis]

To he honest, this thread has degraded to a point where it's just a couple of us disagreeing, with a few veiled insults thrown in. As neither of us can agree, and our opinions will have zero effect on its outcome, I'll leave it there.

[Cyclone]

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree :-)

[Berberis]

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree :-)

 

Probably best