Jobs No One Wants

[SarahBell]

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/20/businessman-slams-lazy-jobseekers-after-no-one-applies-for-50-vacancies-4154102/

Minimum wage for nightshift.

[@contradevian]

http://metro.co.uk/2...ancies-4154102/

Minimum wage for nightshift.

And he wanted the shift filled that day (night).

Also its his job to find the workers, not just outsource it to JCP and earn a commission.

The problems with a 'Just in time' workforce eh. People on benefits are wise to it. Get lured into work and told the contract could last a few weeks, its lasts a night at best and then all their benefits are screwed up for weeks.

Edited October 21, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[EUBanana]

Simple. Pay more. Especially if he wanted something ASAP.

Contract rate unskilled labour

[MrPin]

And he wanted the shift filled that day (night).

Also its his job to find the workers, not just outsource it to JCP and earn a commission.

The problems with a 'Just in time' workforce eh. People on benefits are wise to it. Get lured into work and told the contract could last a few weeks, its lasts a night at best and then all their benefits are screwed up for weeks.

Yes, it's not a "proper" job is it?

[@contradevian]

Yes, it's not a "proper" job is it?

They are incredibly lazy these temp firms. Need bods and then ring up the Jobcentre to find them.

Also a lot of these jobs are on remote trading estates where there is no public transport at night (if at all) so you really need shift workers with cars.

Can recall temp agencies in Leicester at least used to have a minibus so all people had to do was meet outside the office at a certain time to be picked up. Now they can't even be bothered to do that.

Edited October 21, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[doahh]

Yes, it's not a "proper" job is it?

The employer:

• Gave 4 hours notice to the agency (not the employee);

• Wanted 50 people that night(?);

• The potential employees would probably have been awake all day and then expected to do a full night shift for minimum wage at extremely short notice.

If someone asked me to do that I would give the employer two fingers as well. The employer could be better prepared and realise that he has 50 jobs to fill and so start finding people a little earlier. The employer sounds like a tuckwitted fwat to me.

[Harry Monk]

Yes, it's ridiculous, how can you suddenly need fifty people in any business and not expect to have to plan that for more than four hours?

[Liquid Goldfish]

Pay a proper rate for night shifts, you scrounger.

[workingpoor]

no-one turned up for a "trial" shift. maybe no-one gives two xxxx's about being "trialled" by some pontificating "businessman"

[durhamborn]

This was also a 0 hours contract.You could be called in anytime for 4 hours.You would lose all your benefits yet perhaps only get a few hours a week.

The ironic thing is the only people who can take these jobs now are people not on benefits.People with a pension,partner in work etc.

Nobody on benefits can afford to take jobs like this.

The best case was 3 months work,finished Christmas eve.

Even people on JSA can turn down 0 hours contracts without sanctions.

[MrPin]

This was also a 0 hours contract.You could be called in anytime for 4 hours.You would lose all your benefits yet perhaps only get a few hours a week.

The ironic thing is the only people who can take these jobs now are people not on benefits.People with a pension,partner in work etc.

Nobody on benefits can afford to take jobs like this.

The best case was 3 months work,finished Christmas eve.

Even people on JSA can turn down 0 hours contracts without sanctions.

That's the thing, Mr Durham, it was hardly an "offer of employment", was it?

[durhamborn]

That's the thing, Mr Durham, it was hardly an "offer of employment", was it?

Exactly,,it was an offer to give up your benefits on the hope you might get 4 hours a week work,or maybe 40 hours for 2 months then another month to sort your benefits out.

[porca misèria]

Is that a moonlighting Daily Mail journo? Or a Guardian one (after all, the "businessman" comes out as the total ******* here)?

Clearly a non-story designed to enrage.

[@contradevian]

Exactly,,it was an offer to give up your benefits on the hope you might get 4 hours a week work,or maybe 40 hours for 2 months then another month to sort your benefits out.

The kind of situation that UC was designed to cope with but amazingly will never be able to. Maybe firms will have to offer proper jobs instead.

[Frank Hovis]

Exactly,,it was an offer to give up your benefits on the hope you might get 4 hours a week work,or maybe 40 hours for 2 months then another month to sort your benefits out.

Yep, and find yourself queueing up at the foodbank because you have no money for weeks.

[Hectors House]

Danny James is fly by night nobody, nothing to get worked up about, unfortunately the metro is full of crap stories these days, I unsubscribed because of the tosh they were coming out with.

[alexw]

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/20/businessman-slams-lazy-jobseekers-after-no-one-applies-for-50-vacancies-4154102/

Minimum wage for nightshift.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say look at those lazy layabouts who don't want to work, or pointing out how rachman-like work practices at the low end are getting.

If it's the former you've seriously misjudged poster's here.

He want's individuals to work that night giving four hour's notice to potential employees. Moreover the workers will have to be awake for 24h straight if they are to take the job. Even worse it's only a "trial" meaning they could be employed for only that single night if the employer so decides. For all that he wants to pay minimum wage.

Every right thinking person should tell him to **** himself. Apparently they metaphorically did (no applicants). Good.

Also....

Night shift work normally pays a premium, where is it?

He want's people on quick notice and this sort of thing also normally pays a premium. Again where is it?

So in conclusion..... go **** yourself Mr Rachman.

[TheMadJock]

Don't want to troll, I don't post here much but read plenty. I found a link to the story, not surprisingly in the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2469954/Boss-offered-job-vacancies-brands-unemployed-lazy-applies-roles.html

Danny James looks like a right chancer, shouldn't judge a book by it's cover but I'm afraid that's a face I'd just want to punch

Anyway, who the hell would chance ending up with a load of hassle trying to sort their benefits out for a 'trial shift' from which they weren't offered a job? More a case of someone needing a load of work done cheaply then surprise, surprise, there would be no longer term work for anybody.

Start paying people right, if you can't afford to then you're out of business pal - I'm sounding like a proper socialist which I'm traditionally not, I'm just sick of muppets like this living off the back of other people. The older I get, the more this zero hours/temp/agency nonsense annoys me - I'm lucky enough to have a well-paid and secure job but I do have children and I despair for their future.

[Frank Hovis]

A face that needs a slap.

I suspect he may soon be unemployed himself, as he has shown himself to be a bloody useless filler of vacancies. So much so that it makes national news.

Want workers to fill your posts? Then contact Danny James recruitment agency. You won't get any

[SNACR]

A business employing full-time contracted staff on the traditional basis is, and will remain, uncompetitive.

Zero hours, automation and self-employed is the future. Mostly, it's the fault of people's purchasing and voting choices - a lot of whom are probably now moaning about it.

This guy is obviously an attention-seeking ***** but, I'm not sure why people think businesses should or will pay more than they need to when they buy labour. Half the people moaning on this thread will probably buy something off ebay later and change the search result setting to lowest price first as an almost involuntary response.

[EUBanana]

Given he got 0 people I think that is proof that actually he does need to offer more.

Business doesn't dictate the price of labour, the market does. I'm sure if he offered a grand each he'd be fighting them off. As it is he pitched low and got nada.

[@contradevian]

Given he got 0 people I think that is proof that actually he does need to offer more.

Business doesn't dictate the price of labour, the market does. I'm sure if he offered a grand each he'd be fighting them off. As it is he pitched low and got nada.

Especially as he is going to charge the employer 2 x NMW

[durhamborn]

A business employing full-time contracted staff on the traditional basis is, and will remain, uncompetitive.

Zero hours, automation and self-employed is the future. Mostly, it's the fault of people's purchasing and voting choices - a lot of whom are probably now moaning about it.

This guy is obviously an attention-seeking ***** but, I'm not sure why people think businesses should or will pay more than they need to when they buy labour. Half the people moaning on this thread will probably buy something off ebay later and change the search result setting to lowest price first as an almost involuntary response.

Funny you should mention Ebay as im a very high turnover powerseller on there.I would think on turnover and profit probably in the top 1%.I also have a need for short term labour now and again mainly to unload containers when they come in.I did use an agency the first time to get 3 lads (one in his 50s,2 in early 20s) but I paid them on top of the agency rate and took their phone numbers.

Now when I need labour I could easily phone the agency and pay £8.70 an hour for people for a day and theyd get NMW.Instead I phone the 3 lads direct and I pay them between £15 and £20 and hour.

Yes it costs me £200 more for the day than I need pay,but the guys work hard,turn up on time etc.The deserve more and I pay them more.Whenever I call them they never turn down the work because it pays well.They are happy,i don't have containers stood waiting to be emptied.

The difference is as well iv been where those guys are before.So your wrong to say a business will always pay the minimum,it depends on the business and what its values are.

[SNACR]

Funny you should mention Ebay as im a very high turnover powerseller on there.I would think on turnover and profit probably in the top 1%.I also have a need for short term labour now and again mainly to unload containers when they come in.I did use an agency the first time to get 3 lads (one in his 50s,2 in early 20s) but I paid them on top of the agency rate and took their phone numbers.

Now when I need labour I could easily phone the agency and pay £8.70 an hour for people for a day and theyd get NMW.Instead I phone the 3 lads direct and I pay them between £15 and £20 and hour.

Yes it costs me £200 more for the day than I need pay,but the guys work hard,turn up on time etc.The deserve more and I pay them more.Whenever I call them they never turn down the work because it pays well.They are happy,i don't have containers stood waiting to be emptied.

The difference is as well iv been where those guys are before.So your wrong to say a business will always pay the minimum,it depends on the business and what its values are.

I think you're deluding yourself a bit that it's an ethical choice as it simply sounds like an arrangement that's convenient for you and are these guys paying tax and NI on this, or you? You may need to make sure your insurance would cover if they got injured, if they're not on the books.

It would probably be more ethical to outsource your container destuffing as the staff there would likely be contracted and PAYE.

We have powered conveyors that go right inside from the loading bay so it's never more than a two man job and I wouldn't think it's a long way from being automated as it's one of the few big manual handling tasks left. It's a pretence that any business could insulate itself from that, if its competitors had gone down this path. The choice then is be uncompetitive in price (I'm sure you're aware how feasible this is as an ebay business) or it's out of your own take home as a charitable donations - in such circumstances I'd rather give the money to a sick kid's charity.

With an internet business as well there's no real incentive to put money into the local economy as chances are it isn't going to come back to you in the way it would with traditional local businesses.

[wonderpup]

A business employing full-time contracted staff on the traditional basis is, and will remain, uncompetitive.

Zero hours, automation and self-employed is the future. Mostly, it's the fault of people's purchasing and voting choices - a lot of whom are probably now moaning about it.

This guy is obviously an attention-seeking ***** but, I'm not sure why people think businesses should or will pay more than they need to when they buy labour. Half the people moaning on this thread will probably buy something off ebay later and change the search result setting to lowest price first as an almost involuntary response.

You talk of the need for business to be competitive- but what is it they are competing for? The answer is simple- they are competing for a share of the wages paid out to the people employed by business- because in general demand for goods and services is a function of wages.

So assume that your future view of employment comes to pass and more and more people end up in insecure employment that pays less than it's full time counterpart- what impact will this have on the pool of wages available to consumers- that pool will go down- which means less demand for goods and services.

So the more successful business is in reducing the wages it pays out, the less demand there will be for goods and services- which will in turn lead to further attempts to cut wages in order to remain 'competitive'.

I don't disagree with your predictions- but to me they represent not the success of the free market model but a failure. As far as I can see there is no feedback mechanism in the free market paradigm that would allow it to incorporate the reality that it's labor force and it's customer base are the same thing- and lacking that insight the free market is quite capable of industriously sawing off the branch upon which it is sitting.