Not really. It doesn't follow that the 500k vacancies can be filled by the skillsets of the 2.3m unemployed. My company has many vacancies, but finding available suitably-skilled candidates is very difficult.
Not really. It doesn't follow that the 500k vacancies can be filled by the skillsets of the 2.3m unemployed. My company has many vacancies, but finding available suitably-skilled candidates is very difficult.
Also, there is always a level of vacancies, the whole system would collapse if there wasn't.
There are many people changing from one job to another, of course that position is momentarily going to become a vacancy, only to be filled from someone moving from another job.
Just because there are X amount of vacancies, it doesn't mean X amount of unemployed could fill them. Grrrr..... it gets me when folk do that.
problem with that is if the person was a carer for mos of ther life and haven't had paid work, they have contributed and sacrificed alot, will they get the higher rate
problem with that is if the person was a carer for mos of ther life and haven't had paid work, they have contributed and sacrificed alot, will they get the higher rate
No THe higher contribution rate would be for manly JSA
Last figure I saw was about half-a-million vacancies - growing all the time, so reasons to be optimistic.
THe underlying number of job vacancies has to be higher as we have a constant stream of migrants coming into the UK so there is doubt over the accuracy of the government statistics
No THe higher contribution rate would be for manly JSA
What I mean is if they have been caringvfor someone 24/7 for yesrs thst person they arr caring for dies or has to go live in a home or something, that csrrr mow tries to fond a paid job, he has been working jard as a carer most of his life, does he get the higher rate or the lower rate
Not really. It doesn't follow that the 500k vacancies can be filled by the skillsets of the 2.3m unemployed. My company has many vacancies, but finding available suitably-skilled candidates is very difficult.
What we really need is a Nationalkills shortage Map showing what skills we are short of and in what areas they are. We then need training schemes put in place to train people to fill these positions
Probably much of this data probably exists in a very fragmented form but there is no big picture of it
problem with that is if the person was a carer for mos of ther life and haven't had paid work, they have contributed and sacrificed alot, will they get the higher rate
I think it's really about older people who lose their jobs when realistically they aren't going to get a decent new one. If a person loses their job at aged 56 it's a long time to go to live on JSA until they retire.
What I mean is if they have been caringvfor someone 24/7 for yesrs thst person they arr caring for dies or has to go live in a home or something, that csrrr mow tries to fond a paid job, he has been working jard as a carer most of his life, does he get the higher rate or the lower rate
Yes if they get carers allowance they get NI credits, so someone caring for someone for 30 years and claiming CA for all that time would then get more JSA then someone who has only paid 2 years of NI from paid work.
The problem as I see it is that yes I would benefit having already paid 43 years worth of NI contributions, but that is due to my age amongst other things, how long before someone who has only paid in for a couple of years due to their age would start to scream age discrimination and take the government to court over it.
I think it's really about older people who lose their jobs when realistically they aren't going to get a decent new one. If a person loses their job at aged 56 it's a long time to go to live on JSA until they retire.
I got a job aged 58 after two weeks of unemployment in an unemployment black spot so can be done, granted I am earning less per month than I used to pay in tax and NI per month but its a job
A by-product of the current, often demeaning, unpaid back-to-work scheme is that those losing their jobs may well be deterred from claiming in the first place. My own wife is taking voluntary redundancy and is terrified of signing on after reading all the stories in the media about how badly claimants are treated. In fact, she won't do so. So there's another person who won't be included in the unemployment figures. Hmm…
A by-product of the current, often demeaning, unpaid back-to-work scheme is that those losing their jobs may well be deterred from claiming in the first place. My own wife is taking voluntary redundancy and is terrified of signing on after reading all the stories in the media about how badly claimants are treated. In fact, she won't do so. So there's another person who won't be included in the unemployment figures. Hmm…
She would not be able to claim any benefits in any case. She choose to make herself unemployed
AFAIK it doesn't matter whether it's voluntary or not – it's still redundancy. Also, I'm sure she could claim contributions-based JSA at some point.
You are correct. Voluntary redundancy is not the same as arbitrarily choosing to leave a job. She would be able to claim contribution based JSA (I assume she has paid enough NI over the last 2 years) on taking voluntary redundancy.
Comments
Brilliant, just another 1.8 million to go.
I'm sure Labour could invent another 1.8m public sector non-jobs. Only trouble - how to pay for them?
A wage for the work people do.
Not really. It doesn't follow that the 500k vacancies can be filled by the skillsets of the 2.3m unemployed. My company has many vacancies, but finding available suitably-skilled candidates is very difficult.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/20/labour-restore-link-contributions-benefits
Also, there is always a level of vacancies, the whole system would collapse if there wasn't.
There are many people changing from one job to another, of course that position is momentarily going to become a vacancy, only to be filled from someone moving from another job.
Just because there are X amount of vacancies, it doesn't mean X amount of unemployed could fill them. Grrrr..... it gets me when folk do that.
But in that case if under Labour employers will be able to pay the people who work for them, why can't they pay them under this government?
problem with that is if the person was a carer for mos of ther life and haven't had paid work, they have contributed and sacrificed alot, will they get the higher rate
I wonder how they are going to cost that...
...bankers bonus tax?
So what will they replace it with?
No THe higher contribution rate would be for manly JSA
THe underlying number of job vacancies has to be higher as we have a constant stream of migrants coming into the UK so there is doubt over the accuracy of the government statistics
What I mean is if they have been caringvfor someone 24/7 for yesrs thst person they arr caring for dies or has to go live in a home or something, that csrrr mow tries to fond a paid job, he has been working jard as a carer most of his life, does he get the higher rate or the lower rate
What we really need is a Nationalkills shortage Map showing what skills we are short of and in what areas they are. We then need training schemes put in place to train people to fill these positions
Probably much of this data probably exists in a very fragmented form but there is no big picture of it
I think it's really about older people who lose their jobs when realistically they aren't going to get a decent new one. If a person loses their job at aged 56 it's a long time to go to live on JSA until they retire.
Yes if they get carers allowance they get NI credits, so someone caring for someone for 30 years and claiming CA for all that time would then get more JSA then someone who has only paid 2 years of NI from paid work.
The problem as I see it is that yes I would benefit having already paid 43 years worth of NI contributions, but that is due to my age amongst other things, how long before someone who has only paid in for a couple of years due to their age would start to scream age discrimination and take the government to court over it.
I got a job aged 58 after two weeks of unemployment in an unemployment black spot so can be done, granted I am earning less per month than I used to pay in tax and NI per month but its a job
I doubt if the company will be paying for them more likely the government will pay companies to take on an extra member of staff for a few weeks
She would not be able to claim any benefits in any case. She choose to make herself unemployed
AFAIK it doesn't matter whether it's voluntary or not – it's still redundancy. Also, I'm sure she could claim contributions-based JSA at some point.
But then that is no different to what is happening now. Which goes to show there are not enough real jobs being created now nor will be in the future.
It counts the same as deliberately making yourself unemployed. She would not be able to claim JSA until basically her savings fell below the limit
You are correct. Voluntary redundancy is not the same as arbitrarily choosing to leave a job. She would be able to claim contribution based JSA (I assume she has paid enough NI over the last 2 years) on taking voluntary redundancy.