My brother in law was recently made redundant at the ripe old age of 58, after working all his life, got job seekers for 3 months, now gets no benefits, nothing at all, he doesn't appear on any official 'unemployed list' apparently, no wonder the total unemployed number keeps dropping.
I was told by someone that in australia you have to work for your money but you get yourself a job any job even delivering papers anything that will pay a wage and the state will make it up to a living wage or was i told a porkie.
Lost your job?And you're asking the working population to help you out? "No problem, heres a bus pass,sign on at eight every weekday at whatever location,and sign off at five. Lunch will be provided,so if you don't come in,you'll go hungry for the day Safety boots and Hi-viz jacket will be provided You'll be expected to do whatever is asked of you And if no-ones got anything for you to do,or if you're unskilled,we'll help to train you up or teach you to read or whatever ....Sign here please" To help pay for it,the Job Centres in the high street will be closed and the staff will man the Labour Exchanges where you sign on/spend your day.... And if firms like mine need temporary staff for a couple of days,we pay the Government a reasonable rate. As usual,the naysayers want you to believe it's all too difficult,too expensive,too complicated.... When in reality,it's really very simple
nahhh we really need nazi gas camps for the unemployed. lets cleanse the nation starting with the weakest spongers. if youve been unemployed for 6 months or more - your family goes too. it will also solve the housing crisis. the major downside is that it would severly impact the 'sports direct' company in particilar sales of lonsdale and mcenzie clothing garments would that passify some on here ?
This has been going on forever and a day. Successive governments like to change the rules on how the unemployed are counted so that it looks like the numbers are coming down all the time when in reality they do no such thing. I'm sure that Pete1950 will be along in a while to explain the current method of counting and missing huge chunks of the potentially employable population.
So here's my (unworkable) idea: Get the unemployed to turn all vacant lots and miscellaneous pieces of ground into gardens and vegetable plots. Gives people a sense of real values, the joy of creation, of seeing projects evolve. Improves the cities to the delight of all, feeds pensioners (or unemployed people), improves diets, reduces obesity, gets people out in the fresh air instead of sitting at home. Seeds don't cost much. It's human labour that is the biggest cost in gardening. Get if for free (if you see what I mean). Gardening is one of the core values of British society, something that Britons do particularly well (when they are not keeping shops).
They fiddle the numbers ... I feel sorry for older people who get laid off then people say sorry to old for us .. That's insulting. I'd rather employ an older worldly wise person with good values then some spotty Herbert who thinks the world owes him a living doesn't want to be there at all and then probably won't turn up!!!! Someone will get hurt due to not qualified or trained properly and they will get sued and the yup the human rights lot ... It will all end in tears. But when you know someone's sat on their arse for years with NO intension to work ... Make them do something !
They will be sending the knockers round Those men that used to walk along the front of the houses with a lamp knocking you up in the morning !
Let's start with the ILO figures. There are standard UN definitions of several types of figures including unemployment, supposedly applying to every country in the world. International Labour Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Successive British governments have been changing the definition of unemployment for many years, generally to make the figures look as low as possible by excluding various categories. They are now very different from ILO standards. Current figures measure not people who have no work, and not people who are looking for work, but people who are claiming unemployment benefit ("Jobseekers Allowance", etc) and who are eligible to receive it under current rules. The beauty of this approach is that to reduce unemployment figures all the government has to do is tighten the criteria for benefit. And there are no people who are unemployed but get no benefit, because if they get no benefit they are by definition not unemployed. Q.E.D.
Perhaps the figure you are thinking of is that the workforce is about half the total population. The other half are too young, too old, too sick, in education, rich enough not to work, etc.
Because the "excess "that the company pays,(over and above what the Claimant receives per day from the Taxpayer),will go towards the cost of the education/re-training element of the programme. Also,getting paid a larger amount in cash on one day might make the Claimant reluctant to come in the next day,and one of the main points of the exercise would be to get people into the habit of getting up in the morning to go to work....
The easiest way to define what should happen is simply think back a good number of years....... ...............who normally didn't work to receive benefit?...........pensioners and children (actually, children didn't and still don't receive benefit) plus really severely disabled people........ The rest were effectively 'workers without a job'..............if they were in work, they would earn wages for working; therefore there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't work to get benefit or wages as such. If there are school leavers on benefits, they are also workers without a job, unless they go into further education or apprenticeships for which they either get a grant or a smaller wage........like most of us did. AL
Back to 1910, then, before David Lloyd George's famous budget. Nobody got any benefits. No old age pensions, no sickness, no unemployment, no childrens' allowance. If you were poor without work, you begged for charity, or you got fed in a workhouse (like Oliver Twist), or you stole, or you starved. That was it. You'll only need one guess which party strenuously opposed that 1910 budget.
why dont the politicians start working for their wages instead of free loading off the state, and then claiming additional benefits for second homes? id like to see some of them working for a change.
I never had you down as someone with such a lack of imagination Pete I don't suppose anyone on here considers going to such extremes is necessary Because in 2013,too many get something without making any effort And many who do deserve something get nothing Somewhere in the middle,there is a system acceptable to all There was such a system,probably around the mid-Seventies Where the reward for work was far greater than being on benefits And a working person could justifiably look down on those who tried to live off the backs of others who worked But needless to say,the ego-tripping Politicians fucked it all up So congratulations to them,now no-ones happy The unemployed don't get enough because theres too many claiming The employed pay too much to keep the non-working And those who deserve and have contributed to the system get sweet F.A if they get into a pickle Here's a radical idea: Why don't you use your undoubted intellect to help find a reasonable solution? It would be so much more interesting than the suggestion that changing anything would take us back to the Dark Ages Come on Old Chap,be a good sport and tell us how things could be improved
