mfp123 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 No, the scheme has absolutely nothing to do with getting the unemployed back in to work. It is happening because the current government is strongly ideologically predisposed towards big business, and because it wants to make it appear to be doing something about unemployment, which, anyone with half a brain knows this does not do because all it does is replace paid workers with free ones. its targetted at a specific group, the young and the long term unemployed, to help people get their foot through the door. it says nothing about increasing the overall employment levels and creating new jobs, but is about helping a specific group of people into a job. otherwise theyre just left behind. those with better qualifications, cv's, and experience will always get the priority in an open jobs market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 So I take it you don't believe in tipping? Well I would not tip a guy on basic salary of a million plus. I would tip a waitress in a restaurant simply because I feel these people depend on tips to earn a living wage. Lets face it- a guy paid a million plus to do a job who then says 'I need the additional incentive of a bonus to be motivated to work' is not someone overly burdened with ethics. The problem is that we seem to want it both ways- we justify massive bonus payouts at the top as a necessary condition of motivating effort- and then get outraged when someone on benefits points out that they lack motivation to work because they will be worse off if they do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 its targetted at a specific group, the young and the long term unemployed, to help people get their foot through the door.it says nothing about increasing the overall employment levels and creating new jobs, but is about helping a specific group of people into a job. otherwise theyre just left behind. those with better qualifications, cv's, and experience will always get the priority in an open jobs market. I take it that you yourself work for money? So if we were serious about motivating people into a job, big part of that motivation would be the pay they would receive for working. So you should be arguing for these people to be paid the going rate while on these schemes as the extra cash in their pocket would emphasise a main benefit of working (assuming they will be better off in work of course). But the reality is these schemes are cosmetic and punitive in intent- something very clear to those who are compelled to participate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 well then its not work experience is it. if we could find them a job that paid them a wage they wouldnt be the long term unemployed. saying the solution to helping the long term unemployed off work is to let companies hire them and pay them wages doesnt really solve the problem. the fact that that isnt happening is why the scheme exists in the first place. Work experience.....many secondary school kids do that, unless the person wants a job, and is a person that can help create a profit for the company they will never in a million years get employed full time....in eight weeks, if the person is good it will show after a few hours training, after that they may if they don't want to be there create more problems than solve......people that want work, will work if they are paid a good price for what they do and can see they are valued in the organisation.....forcing people to be in a place they don't want to be, doing something they don't want to do creates more problems than it is worth for all involved...the company, the other staff members and the public. If the jobs are not there maybe training might be a better option for the long-term or young unemployed....training them with a skill they want to do, maybe something practical or basic 3Rs, they will still have to turn up on time in the morning and show discipline and could come out of it with more on their CV than packing shelves in a supermarket for less than the rest get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) The punitive nature of these schemes is very clear, what other reason can there be for the girl who was already doing volunteer work in her own field to be forced to take a placement at pound land. You can try and defend it by saying it was a voluntary placement and she could leave in the first week, but in practice if she had I bet she would have been sanctioned and had to appeal the sanction decision. She may have won the appeal for being sanctioned for leaving the job placement only to find she was then sanctioned for working for someone who is not part of the workfare scheme and therefore not available for work. In addition to this I would bet that the job centre advisor did not fully advise her that she could have left the scheme with no penalty. This also completely overlooks the mandatory work activity scheme that can be given to any job seeker requiring them to work for benefit for twenty six weeks, it is not voluntary in any way. This in my book can be defined as slave labour. Edited February 25, 2012 by Ulfar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I take it that you yourself work for money? So if we were serious about motivating people into a job, big part of that motivation would be the pay they would receive for working. So you should be arguing for these people to be paid the going rate while on these schemes as the extra cash in their pocket would emphasise a main benefit of working (assuming they will be better off in work of course). But the reality is these schemes are cosmetic and punitive in intent- something very clear to those who are compelled to participate. why would a company pay the normal rate to hire unemployable people, when they can hire employable people instead? thats the reason the scheme exists. the alternative is you pay their wages to go on the placement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bewildered_renter Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 well then its not work experience is it. if we could find them a job that paid them a wage they wouldnt be the long term unemployed. saying the solution to helping the long term unemployed off work is to let companies hire them and pay them wages doesnt really solve the problem. the fact that that isnt happening is why the scheme exists in the first place. this is the root of the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ska_mna Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 if we could find them a job that paid them a wage they wouldnt be the long term unemployed. why would a company pay the normal rate to hire unemployable people, when they can hire employable people instead? So the gist of your argument is: there aren't enough jobs for low skilled workers anymore, therefore we'll force them to work for sub-living wages instead? saying the solution to helping the long term unemployed off work is to let companies hire them and pay them wages doesnt really solve the problem. You're right there. But Workfare doesn't solve the problem either. At best it's a temporary stop-gap until we (as a country) have created enough jobs for everybody. At worst, it's a precursor to state mandated work camps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bewildered_renter Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) forcing people to be in a place they don't want to be, doing something they don't want to do creates more problems than it is worth for all involved...the company, the other staff members and the public. That too, for me, is at the heart of it. The people on these schemes who won't be a problem are those who could do the job and do the job well. Are the supermarkets incapable of recruiting these people into proper jobs? (I probably already know the answer to that question) Edited February 25, 2012 by bewildered_renter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) So the gist of your argument is: there aren't enough jobs for low skilled workers anymore, therefore we'll force them to work for sub-living wages instead? You're right there. But Workfare doesn't solve the problem either. At best it's a temporary stop-gap until we (as a country) have created enough jobs for everybody. At worst, it's a precursor to state mandated work camps. there are 3 real issue in this debate. a) whether they are being forced is debatable, because i could argue people are forced to go to school and if they dont punitive measures are dished out. as such people are treated as slaves everyday. we could argue till the cows come home, but i can easily justify school as slavery purely as a matter of opinion and we would go round in circles. b ) is it ok for people to work for free. are work placements ok, are internships ok, is work experience ok? c) should private companies be subsidised by the state. the only issue i have slightly with is c) but then this is partly offset by pragmatism. you need to work for a company to get experience, and as a company why should i be required to mop up the unemployable ins society if i dont get something in return - since when was that their responsibility? simply calling something forced and slave is merely an opinion not a cut and shut case like many think it is. Edited February 25, 2012 by mfp123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 why would a company pay the normal rate to hire unemployable people, when they can hire employable people instead?thats the reason the scheme exists. The reason that they should pay the going rate- aside from the fact that it's the law of the land- is because if the idea of the scheme is to provide motivation to unmotivated people- and getting paid to work is a primary motivation for doing that work- then that is a major motivational factor that should be demonstrated. If people went on the scheme and suddenly found they had more money in their pockets- would this not be an incentive to get into work when the scheme ended? The sudden drop in income as they left the scheme would be a clear demonstration of the benefits of working. So if they are sincere in their claims that they are seeking to instil motivation to work into these people then paying them the going rate is the most important thing they should be doing. The fact that they are not doing so is proof that the schemes are cosmetic and exploitative. (Or maybe the truth is they would not be better off and Tesco knows it. ) the alternative is you pay their wages to go on the placement. Tesco already has it's staff wages subsidised by the taxpayer via the working tax credits scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 At worst, it's a precursor to state mandated work camps. It would make sense for these workers to be concentrated in camps to avoid the high cost of daily transport to their allocated places of labour. All we need now is a catchy name for these camps....something memorable. What about 'concentration camps?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The reason that they should pay the going rate- aside from the fact that it's the law of the land- is because if the idea of the scheme is to provide motivation to unmotivated people- and getting paid to work is a primary motivation for doing that work- then that is a major motivational factor that should be demonstrated. If people went on the scheme and suddenly found they had more money in their pockets- would this not be an incentive to get into work when the scheme ended? The sudden drop in income as they left the scheme would be a clear demonstration of the benefits of working. So if they are sincere in their claims that they are seeking to instil motivation to work into these people then paying them the going rate is the most important thing they should be doing. The fact that they are not doing so is proof that the schemes are cosmetic and exploitative. (Or maybe the truth is they would not be better off and Tesco knows it. ) Tesco already has it's staff wages subsidised by the taxpayer via the working tax credits scheme. its got nothing to do with motivation. tesco could hire these people if they wanted to in the open jobs market. but they dont. and neither are other employers. tesco has no responsibility for this scheme. its got nothing to do with them. what youre suggesting doesnt require a government scheme for it to happen. tesco and others can already see who are the long term unemployed in society, simply by looking at peoples CV. and they choose not to employ them. and thats the problem. you cant just tell a company to employ someone because you think its good for society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 its got nothing to do with motivation. The entire rationale of these schemes is to motivate people to get back into the 'world of work'. So not paying them is stupid, since getting paid is one of the main reasons that people are motivated to work and one of the main benefits of working. tesco could hire these people if they wanted to in the open jobs market. but they dont. and neither are other employers. tesco has no responsibility for this scheme. its got nothing to do with them. Right- so Tesco doe's not want to employ them and has no interest in the scheme as it's got nothing to so with them. So that rather begs the question of what their real motivation is- and the only one left is they want unpaid labour to work in their shops. what youre suggesting doesnt require a government scheme for it to happen. tesco and others can already see who are the long term unemployed in society, simply by looking at peoples CV. and they choose not to employ them. and thats the problem. So why are they involved at all? It's idiotic to set up a scheme to incentivise people to work and then not pay them- all they learn from that is one of the richest corporations in the UK has such contempt for them that it will not even pay for their labour. you cant just tell a company to employ someone because you think its good for society. Tesco choose freely to participate no one forced them into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 If' we're relying on the government to uphold ethics and fairness then we're f*cked. Why should they be inherently more moral? If it's because we expect them to be, then why can't we expect big business to have the same ethics? Should we expect people in general to act decently or do we rely on the police to enforce every behaviour? This idea that a section of society should be allowed or even encouraged by law to abandon any sense of morality to maximise profit and therefore financial benefits to the rest of us is insanity - do we really believe that we can encourage sociopathy to have free reign and it not come back to bite us, nor for the sociopathic behaviour to influence people in general? Apart from any of this, the fact that the average career politician or civil servant with little experience in business could ever be in a position or have the wherewithal to police the senior management of a corporation is wishful thinking at best. The idea that amoral business is a good thing and perfectly normal, to me is a relatively recent phenomenon, yet it seems to have taken hold as accepted thinking. I find this incredible, frankly. If we think that encouraging this type of 'i'm alright jack' thinking won't influence the decisions of people in wider society we're in cloud cuckoo land. Great post (again)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) The entire rationale of these schemes is to motivate people to get back into the 'world of work'. So not paying them is stupid, since getting paid is one of the main reasons that people are motivated to work and one of the main benefits of working. Right- so Tesco doe's not want to employ them and has no interest in the scheme as it's got nothing to so with them. So that rather begs the question of what their real motivation is- and the only one left is they want unpaid labour to work in their shops. So why are they involved at all? It's idiotic to set up a scheme to incentivise people to work and then not pay them- all they learn from that is one of the richest corporations in the UK has such contempt for them that it will not even pay for their labour. Tesco choose freely to participate no one forced them into it. what do you think tescos motivation is? i find it bizarre you think that people assume tesco are doing this as some kind of social development of unemployed people. they are not a social charity they are a business. why should they hire the long term unemplyed just because the government is pointing them out? why dont you hire them. they have no need to deliberately hire the long term unemployed people when they can hire much more employable people. thats the whole point. if businesses felt that the long term unemployed was a good group of people to employ, they wouldnt be the long term unemployed because people would be hiring them! you dont need scheme to point out a group of people that are long term unemployed to you. businesses know who they are - theyre the type of people that hand in their CV and that you dont want to hire, hence thats why you need a scheme like this. i.e tesco are not part of the social elements of the scheme. they are in it for themselves and if theres nothing in it for them why would they get involved? youre effectively talking about implementing a scheme along the lines of " ive got this great idea, do you know the people you dont want to employ - well ive got a scheme going whereby you do employ them and you pay them" and you expect business to go "oh yes why didnt i think of that before. the persons cv which i threw in the bin because i didnt want to hire them - well if i join your scheme i will now have the privilege of employing and paying them. i didnt want them yesterday but under your scheme apparently i do" this scheme is effectively giving businesses a list of people that they dont want, those at the bottom of the list when it comes to CVs, and you expect them to jump at the chance of paying money to hire them. Edited February 26, 2012 by mfp123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK-AL Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mcdonalds-spends-10m-of-taxpayers-cash-743698 That's one of the main reasons I disagree with the massive push for apprentices; eventually it's going to be used to train people on jobs that was previously classed as unskilled just to bypass NWM and grab taxpayer money. However I could be wrong and McDonalds wants to genuinely provide new skills... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I oppose workfare less for what it is now than for it's direction of travel. This analysis seems all too plausible to me and puts a wider context on the debate; Human labor, after all, is simply a form of energy that can be applied to various inputs and productive processes, including the harvesting of other energy sources and the development of infrastructure necessary for large-scale societies. Most middle to upper-middle class Americans have forgotten all about the labor expended and the lives lost by their not-so-distant ancestors in the course of such work. Yet, they may very well be forced into laying railway tracks and mining coal or constructing/repairing roads, highways, bridges and canals in the near future. College and graduate students steeped in debt who are expecting cushy office jobs that no longer exist will find out they have effectively been sold into slavery by their system of “education”.At a time when the net energy returns afforded by the extraction of fossil fuels is quickly disappearing, the industrial corporate elites will once again rely on what can only be called “slave labor” to perpetuate a system of large-scale exploitation and wealth extraction. This time these pools of labor will not only be confined to minority groups or third world countries, and we will all find out just how little control we have over our own lives and our own bodies. When faced with the threat of arbitrary imprisonment and/or being stripped of all your earthly possessions, it will be very difficult to resist making a deal of debt servitude with the Devil. Where can any of these people turn to for relief or protection? Can they seek help from their local police departments or court systems? Traditionally, those have been potential avenues for at least a modicum of justice. Soon, however, even these institutions will be well into the process of being privatized in the name of “fiscal responsibility” and “market efficiency”, which is really code for corporate control over all facets of the modern state. Wealthy corporate conglomerates will not only have seized the “power of the purse”, but also the state’s dispute resolution mechanisms and its monopoly to use coercion and violence in pursuit of vaguely-defined goals. When a sizeable portion of the police force in any major city is trained, armed and managed by private security firms such as Erik Prince’s Blackwater (now known as… Academi), we may find it rather difficult to defend our homes, assets, friends and families from the wrath of our financial oppressors. They will be our creditors and debt collectors, as well as our judges, juries and executioners. One does not only become a debt slave by being underwater on private debts, though. http://theautomaticearth.org/Finance/our-depraved-future-of-debt-slavery-part-iii.html Note the involvement of private agencies in the current Workfare project, and the ongoing proposals to engage private enterprise in the prison system and the police force. Is it entirely wise to accept the right of the state to create pools of unpaid labour that are then run by private interests and deployed for the benefit of other private interests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ska_mna Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 I oppose workfare less for what it is now than for it's direction of travel. This analysis seems all too plausible to me and puts a wider context on the debate; http://theautomaticearth.org/Finance/our-depraved-future-of-debt-slavery-part-iii.html Note the involvement of private agencies in the current Workfare project, and the ongoing proposals to engage private enterprise in the prison system and the police force. Is it entirely wise to accept the right of the state to create pools of unpaid labour that are then run by private interests and deployed for the benefit of other private interests? Yeah yeah but... ooh look, it's the Oscars! Look over there! Celebrities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 It would make sense for these workers to be concentrated in camps to avoid the high cost of daily transport to their allocated places of labour. All we need now is a catchy name for these camps....something memorable. What about 'concentration camps?' Godwin's law! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I oppose workfare less for what it is now than for it's direction of travel. This analysis seems all too plausible to me and puts a wider context on the debate; http://theautomaticearth.org/Finance/our-depraved-future-of-debt-slavery-part-iii.html Note the involvement of private agencies in the current Workfare project, and the ongoing proposals to engage private enterprise in the prison system and the police force. Is it entirely wise to accept the right of the state to create pools of unpaid labour that are then run by private interests and deployed for the benefit of other private interests? This is another chilling aspect of the current scheme. Even now, with a considerable "bounty" paid for each unemployed person they get off JSA, there is encouragement to get people into short term jobs with no prospects, claim the bounty then a few short months later the same person will be unemployed again, back in the system ready to generate more cash for the private contractor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 This is another chilling aspect of the current scheme. Even now, with a considerable "bounty" paid for each unemployed person they get off JSA, there is encouragement to get people into short term jobs with no prospects, claim the bounty then a few short months later the same person will be unemployed again, back in the system ready to generate more cash for the private contractor. A friend from Texas was telling me about there being an untoward willingness to get juveniles into the privately run prison system.... via any offence possible. Start 'em young, recycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 A friend from Texas was telling me about there being an untoward willingness to get juveniles into the privately run prison system.... via any offence possible. Start 'em young, recycle. Yes, I wonder if it's a coincidence that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world and also favours privately run prisons? USA incarceration rate = 743 per 100,000 China incarceration rate = 120 per 100,000 Americans only represent about 5 percent of the world's population, but one-quarter of the entire world's inmates are incarcerated in the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Yes, I wonder if it's a coincidence that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world and also favours privately run prisons? USA incarceration rate = 743 per 100,000 China incarceration rate = 120 per 100,000 Americans only represent about 5 percent of the world's population, but one-quarter of the entire world's inmates are incarcerated in the United States. They have also had inmates working for private corporations for a long time... so I think we know where this is headed Edited February 27, 2012 by Tonkers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ska_mna Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 They have also had inmates working for private corporations for a long time... so I think we know where this is headed Yup and don't forget about this one: Kids for cash scandal > The "Kids for cash" scandal unfolded in 2008 over judicial kickbacks at the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Two judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan, were accused of accepting money from Robert Mericle, builder of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities, in return for contracting with the facilities and imposing harsh sentences on juveniles brought before their courts in order to ensure that the detention centers would be utilized. It's interesting to observe how, in isolation from one another, government and capitalism are forces for good. But working together, it's an unholy alliance. Government = good Capitalism = good Government + Capitalism = Beelzebub's Wet Dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.