|
U-Know! Forum » Tories and unemployment benefits |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Aug 21, 2008, 13:27
|
||
|
Wiggy wrote: Just sounds like a decent, empathetic human who knows that it's all sh*t, but can't do anything about it, trying to help someone a little bit. His/her "remit" was probably impossible bullshit to be honest. Absoloutely. Didn't imply anything negative there at all, if ye thought I did. I imagine 'their' training will be even more soul destroying than the stuff they have to pass on to 'us'! Replete with sessions including a a twenty minute film of some govt superhero cartoon figure, or some such. x
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Aug 21, 2008, 14:41
|
||
|
shanshee_allures wrote: Infact New Deal also included some of the goofy, soul mushing training schemes you speak of. In my time on JSA I was sent on an 'expand your jobsearch' thing. You answer lots of questions, ('can you handle irregular hours?', 'do you like working with children?', etc) and rate them on a 1 to 5. It told me I wanted to be a dispensing optician. The woman at the dole asked me how it had gone, and when I told her she said it had baffled her too, saying she wanted to be an air traffic controller. The training company were laughing all the way to the bank. I was then sent to get NVQ Level 2 in Information Technology. (Level 1 is where they teach you to turn a computer on, open a Word file, close it down, don't spill coffee on the computer; Level 2 is the same but doing something in the Word file). They gave us three months to learn how to do this. They gave us a load of guff about how this was a 'nationally recognised qualification'. Yeah, recognised as being a shitty waste of paper. Then the trainers were teaching people on Lotus cos it's cheaper than having Word. The training with this and all the other courses is outsourced. It is not geared to training people, but to doing the minimum they have to in order to get the wads of money off the government. Personally, I was happy to sit there getting on with writing things I would've been doing at home any way. But there were people there who genuinely wanted to learn how to use IT and they were being cruelly cheated. In the end I never got my certificate. The government decided to have a crackdown on youth unemployment, which meant the training companies got more money for handling under-25s, so us older folks were just turfed out before we'd done the exam. Again, personally I didn't care cos it didn't hurt me, but I really felt for the older people who'd already felt like they'd been scrapheaped before they started the course. None of them would've been made any better by the Conservatives Wisconsin plan that would've shoved them into any McJob or made them scrub graffiti.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Aug 21, 2008, 15:10
|
||
|
Yes, I remember the 2 year YTS/YOP schemes too. A friend did learn the skill of curtain making, which wasn't too bad I suppose, coz she managed to do some extra cirricular sewing to supplement her own measly £35 a week training allowance. Shop shut down before she could get her certificate proper but that's by the by, at least it was a trade of sorts. However some of these schemes included 'checkout operator'. Now I've done that F.T in the past, and it takes at the most 'a day' (took me ten mins) to learn how to operate these damn things with confidence. Who's gaining out of that one? x
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 21, 2008, 16:16
|
||
|
Vybik Jon wrote: Vote for you? Not until you bother to put some effort into your arguments, pooley. Up-to-date figures: Claimant Count (Jobseeker's Allowance) 864,700 Vacancies 634,900 A difference of 229,800. Just a little more than you were suggesting. I do hope that your job doesn't involve a lot of figures. Also, the groups you suggested taking out of the figures don't form part of the unemployment figures. If what you are thinking of is those deemed economically inactive, then talk about that. There's a major difference. (Mind you, even that is a bizarre notion dreamed up years ago by some civil servant). I was too busy working to look at it properly, Still it's an awful lot less than the figure mentioned in this thread earlier. Shows there is hope for jobless/ work shy (;-)). Also too busy to put much effort into responses on this thread, just giving you an opinion. they are allowed aint they?
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 21, 2008, 16:16
|
||
|
Sir John Dunn wrote: pooley wrote: Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: I know loads of people who wont get a job as they are better of on the dole Can you agree that there are more people than jobs? (As there are 1.6 million unemployed, that seems like you can) Can you agree that there are always going to be more people than jobs? If so, we face several options, and I'm wondering which you'd consider best; 1) We make the large pool of unemployed play musical chairs for the smaller pool of jobs 2) We remove benefits from those without a job 3) We find those who can live full and contented lives on the bare minimum, and give them dole, focusing our benefits budget on those who actually want help into work. As an employer, I find it extraordinary that there are more people than jobs (as you claim, I don't know the figures so cant agree or disagree). I'm always struggling to fill positions for good fairly well paid jobs. In my experience, there is a lack of suitable people to fill the positions available. To me, this means a huge retraining program is in order - I simply can not accept that anyone who doesn't need to should spend their whole lives on benefit, without giving something back. Does that make me a Nazi, or worse a tory?? I have no idea. The idea that we should find people that want to do nothing all day, at the expense of everyone else is awful, to me. I'd love to do fuck all, but I have a family and I have to work. Pooley, with employers like you, who needs Nazi Tories? You are the problem, not the solution. Is this a money thing? Do you honestly believe that you would pay less tax if everyone had a job? Who cares whether people work or not? We’ll all be dead soon, anyway.
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 21, 2008, 16:20
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Sir John Dunn wrote: pooley wrote: Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: I know loads of people who wont get a job as they are better of on the dole Can you agree that there are more people than jobs? (As there are 1.6 million unemployed, that seems like you can) Can you agree that there are always going to be more people than jobs? If so, we face several options, and I'm wondering which you'd consider best; 1) We make the large pool of unemployed play musical chairs for the smaller pool of jobs 2) We remove benefits from those without a job 3) We find those who can live full and contented lives on the bare minimum, and give them dole, focusing our benefits budget on those who actually want help into work. As an employer, I find it extraordinary that there are more people than jobs (as you claim, I don't know the figures so cant agree or disagree). I'm always struggling to fill positions for good fairly well paid jobs. In my experience, there is a lack of suitable people to fill the positions available. To me, this means a huge retraining program is in order - I simply can not accept that anyone who doesn't need to should spend their whole lives on benefit, without giving something back. Does that make me a Nazi, or worse a tory?? I have no idea. The idea that we should find people that want to do nothing all day, at the expense of everyone else is awful, to me. I'd love to do fuck all, but I have a family and I have to work. Pooley, with employers like you, who needs Nazi Tories? You are the problem, not the solution. Is this a money thing? Do you honestly believe that you would pay less tax if everyone had a job? Who cares whether people work or not? We’ll all be dead soon, anyway. i'm the problem? hilarious. I work for a failrly decent company, In the course of my work I employ an awful lot of people and train them to the extent that they want/ can handle. You'd have to ask the people working with me whether I'm a nazi or not. And then assume I'd let them answer -they're to busy filling in mass graves to use computers!!! It is a money thing, but not in the way you imply - I'd be happy to pay the same tax with less unemployed - love to see the money go to NHS, training programmes, counselling/ drug rehab - fucking hell, i'd rather see it go to fathers for justice!!!!!! joke.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Edited Aug 21, 2008, 16:49
Aug 21, 2008, 16:48
|
||
|
was too busy working to look at it properly, Still it's an awful lot less than the figure mentioned in this thread earlier. Shows there is hope for jobless/ work shy (;-)). Also too busy to put much effort into responses on this thread, just giving you an opinion. they are allowed aint they? Pooley, you gave an opinion; people chose to comment, agree or disagree as they felt appropriate. You freely admit in an earlier reponse to Grufty that you weren't interested enough in evidence that was presented to you to 'look it up'. That hardly inspires debate does it? It seems a bit disengenuous to fall back on the "opinions being allowed or not" schtick just cos people have chosen to disagree with you on a couple of matters. As it happens, I don't think SJD's comments were particularly helpful or warranted in response to...er....your response either.
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 21, 2008, 16:52
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: was too busy working to look at it properly, Still it's an awful lot less than the figure mentioned in this thread earlier. Shows there is hope for jobless/ work shy (;-)). Also too busy to put much effort into responses on this thread, just giving you an opinion. they are allowed aint they? Pooley, you gave an opinion; people chose to comment, agree or disagree as they felt appropriate. You freely admit in an earlier reponse to Grufty that you weren't interested enough in evidence that was presented to you to 'look it up'. That hardly inspires debate does it? It seems a bit disengenuous to fall back on the "opinions being allowed or not" schtick just cos people have chosen to disagree with you on a couple of matters. As it happens, I don't think SJD's comments were particularly helpful or warranted in response to...er....your response either. Well, ok. I wasn't interested enough to look it up, and took them at there word. turns out that maybe i shouldn't have, as the figures were much less than suggested earlier. Still, there you go
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Aug 21, 2008, 16:56
Aug 21, 2008, 16:56
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Moon Cat wrote: was too busy working to look at it properly, Still it's an awful lot less than the figure mentioned in this thread earlier. Shows there is hope for jobless/ work shy (;-)). Also too busy to put much effort into responses on this thread, just giving you an opinion. they are allowed aint they? Pooley, you gave an opinion; people chose to comment, agree or disagree as they felt appropriate. You freely admit in an earlier reponse to Grufty that you weren't interested enough in evidence that was presented to you to 'look it up'. That hardly inspires debate does it? It seems a bit disengenuous to fall back on the "opinions being allowed or not" schtick just cos people have chosen to disagree with you on a couple of matters. As it happens, I don't think SJD's comments were particularly helpful or warranted in response to...er....your response either. Well, ok. I wasn't interested enough to look it up, and took them at there word. turns out that maybe i shouldn't have, as the figures were much less than suggested earlier. Still, there you go Hang on a second. I didn't "suggest" any figures and I hope you weren't implying some level of dishonesty on my part. I quoted the UK's national statistics office and linked to the page. As far as I'm concerned, those are the official figures. Where have the other ones come from?
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 22, 2008, 09:02
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: pooley wrote: Moon Cat wrote: was too busy working to look at it properly, Still it's an awful lot less than the figure mentioned in this thread earlier. Shows there is hope for jobless/ work shy (;-)). Also too busy to put much effort into responses on this thread, just giving you an opinion. they are allowed aint they? Pooley, you gave an opinion; people chose to comment, agree or disagree as they felt appropriate. You freely admit in an earlier reponse to Grufty that you weren't interested enough in evidence that was presented to you to 'look it up'. That hardly inspires debate does it? It seems a bit disengenuous to fall back on the "opinions being allowed or not" schtick just cos people have chosen to disagree with you on a couple of matters. As it happens, I don't think SJD's comments were particularly helpful or warranted in response to...er....your response either. Well, ok. I wasn't interested enough to look it up, and took them at there word. turns out that maybe i shouldn't have, as the figures were much less than suggested earlier. Still, there you go Hang on a second. I didn't "suggest" any figures and I hope you weren't implying some level of dishonesty on my part. I quoted the UK's national statistics office and linked to the page. As far as I'm concerned, those are the official figures. Where have the other ones come from? Sorry, Grufty, I most certainly wasn't implying any dishonesty on your part. Really sorry if it seemed that way, I could have phrased it better. But, Looking through this thread there are different figures, and it seems when you take out certain groups that cant work, the figures shoot down to a more realistic level.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
