Agreed, i'm just sharing my experiences. The two that were hired worked like a normal member of staff putting in 100% effort even though on workfare, i have to wonder how many of the people on workfare don't ? The other 2 didn't hence why they didn't get hired, quite stupid really as they were all told there may be some positions available.
I think the very nature of workfare means that potential jobs are dangled in front of faces like cash-flavoured carrots.
The other thing i have seen recently is people complaining about the workfare program due to having to work full time for only job seekers. This certainly wasn't true in the people who did their workfare at my place of work. They did a 20 hour week that was just Mon - Fri.
The government have always been eager to push the notion about workfare being short-term and short hours and for young people. The reality is the, for some people, it's been a rolling programme at the same place, often for much longer hours. This is one of issues that appears to have 'helped' the Wilkinson's chain withdraw from the programme. People were coming forward saying how they'd been on the same placements for many months and working 40+ hours and still having to look for work, attend the job centre. The Universal Credit/Jobsearch issue is going to place everyone in a similar bind: full time workfare and having to spend 30 or so hours a week looking for work, attending Job Centre &c.
I see, my employer thankfully then works in a different way not just exploiting people for free work. I completely agree that people on benefits should be made to work but only the amount that the JSA is, i remember reading its £70 ? If thats the case then 15 hours should be the max allowed for them to work.
You might be interested to know that UKIP's welfare policy includes complete phase out of housing benefit and council tax benefit for people in private rented housing and replaced with a workfare system where they perform workfare for that money. Note, that 90+% of all new housing benefit claimants are actually in work. They want people already in work, to work extra hours for free to make up the shortfall between low wages and extortionate private rents. All social housing tenants aside from the very elderly and those too ill to do any work at all (keep in mind ATOS have just judged a woman with mental age of 3-years-old 'fit for work') will also have to perform workfare. You're talking about, literally, millions of people doing workfare. It doesn't take a genius to see as to how this will impact the paid employment market.
Extremely shocked to hear that pound world didn't take on for a Christmas job, surely that would be a perfect opportunity to get someone who knows the job, no training required so no cost in hours in training to cover what is undoubtabley the biggest event in the retail calendar.
There's absolutely no rhyme or reason to workfare and no real argument for it either.
Boris thinks being a 'nasty piece of work' is a badge of honour? Interesting. I don't call the things he did to get that epithet particularly honourable.
I completely agree that people on benefits should be made to work but only the amount that the JSA is, i remember reading its £70 ? If thats the case then 15 hours should be the max allowed for them to work.
I'm not disagreeing with you (yet!), but could I ask why you believe this is OK?
My suspicion is that you really think that 'people who appear to abuse benefits' should do this. And if that's the case, then I think it's worth thinking about just what percentage of poeple that really is. It's nowhere near as many as the media or govt would have you believe.
However, if you think that anyone on JSA (which is only 3% of the welfare budget, remember) should do this work, then I have to ask why. And when. And what possible benefit they or society would get out of it.
I'm not disagreeing with you (yet!), but could I ask why you believe this is OK?
This is a hard thing to articulate. I think most people, on some level, kind of agree with the general principle of this, at least on the surface. It's only when you look below the surface and at the actual implications of what this means.
Many people use the memes they hear on LBC, Daily Mail and so on for confirmation bias but, again, when you look past this, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It addresses 'the something for nothing benefits culture' - doesn't explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who receive benefits (whether JSA or housing benefit &c) have worked, have put into the system. In fact, in the case of tax credits, housing benefit and so on, they're actually still in work. I thought this point was well made by Nick Abbot, last night. I hope this was news to some people and went some way towards awareness as to what's really going on.
The other point people need to look at is that, it's OK suggesting that people do 'x, y and z' jobs in return for benefits, but like to skirt around the issue that in every field of employment that's mentioned (labouring, litter picking, low-end retail &c), these are fields of employment many people rely on for work, are already precarious and insecure, and will mean that these will no longer be open to paid job opportunities.
I genuinely believe that workfare is the 'politics of spite' as there's absolutely no argument for it at all.
Well, gave in this morning and listened to SA - now I know why I had turned him off since MT's death. What a nasty, ignorant man he really is - I can't believe he is being allowed to broadcast the rubbish he is coming out with ! Switched off after an hour as he was putting me in a bad mood. Apparently , those who dislike Thatcher are all leftie, benefit scroungers , and anyone who recalls the miners strike etc need to get a life and have a chip on their shoulder. I was going to text/email him but don't see the point as he is very selective in what he reads on air. I really don't understand how he gets away with it, sad, miserable person that he is ! Won't listen again as I value my sanity .
I hear too that he said Paris Brown should "rot in hell".
Hmmm, a 17 year old girl, saying some silly things, it must be said, but "rot in hell"???
She's just 17.
I hear too that he said Paris Brown should "rot in hell".
Hmmm, a 17 year old girl, saying some silly things, it must be said, but "rot in hell"???
She's just 17.
And she was aged between 14 and 16 when she sent her tweets. Did you hear Duncan Barkes' show a couple of nights ago? He was fully supportive of Paris, some of his callers were not, they vented their spleen, it was most uncomfortable listening. I really do despair sometimes:(
This is a hard thing to articulate. I think most people, on some level, kind of agree with the general principle of this, at least on the surface. It's only when you look below the surface and at the actual implications of what this means.
Many people use the memes they hear on LBC, Daily Mail and so on for confirmation bias but, again, when you look past this, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It addresses 'the something for nothing benefits culture' - doesn't explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who receive benefits (whether JSA or housing benefit &c) have worked, have put into the system. In fact, in the case of tax credits, housing benefit and so on, they're actually still in work. I thought this point was well made by Nick Abbot, last night. I hope this was news to some people and went some way towards awareness as to what's really going on.
The other point people need to look at is that, it's OK suggesting that people do 'x, y and z' jobs in return for benefits, but like to skirt around the issue that in every field of employment that's mentioned (labouring, litter picking, low-end retail &c), these are fields of employment many people rely on for work, are already precarious and insecure, and will mean that these will no longer be open to paid job opportunities.
I genuinely believe that workfare is the 'politics of spite' as there's absolutely no argument for it at all.
I agree with your other posts.
I wonder if you get the amount of comments to your posts that you expect.
Personally, I never read them because they are, usually, so long. My guess is that some others may feel the same.
I wonder if you get the amount of comments to your posts that you expect.
Personally, I never read them because they are, usually, so long. My guess is that some others may feel the same.
I guess the cry to look beyond the headines will always fall on a certain number of deaf ears.
I find PoM's posts very interesting and well-informed, which is just what this second thread needs, IMO.
I wonder if you get the amount of comments to your posts that you expect.
Personally, I never read them because they are, usually, so long. My guess is that some others may feel the same.
I seem to recall having a similar edict handed down to me by you many moons ago deploring my long posts and getting a PM from dear departed Wolfie telling me to ignore it.
I thought at the time it was excellent advice and I still do.
People should feel free to post as long or as short a post as they want to.
It is entirely up to them.
Nobody else.
Well, gave in this morning and listened to SA - now I know why I had turned him off since MT's death. What a nasty, ignorant man he really is - I can't believe he is being allowed to broadcast the rubbish he is coming out with ! Switched off after an hour as he was putting me in a bad mood. Apparently , those who dislike Thatcher are all leftie, benefit scroungers , and anyone who recalls the miners strike etc need to get a life and have a chip on their shoulder. I was going to text/email him but don't see the point as he is very selective in what he reads on air. I really don't understand how he gets away with it, sad, miserable person that he is ! Won't listen again as I value my sanity .
According to Iain Dale, Steve Allen never does politics in his show. Yeah, right.
The truth is that SA almost always covers politics but worse than just about any show on LBC in that it is misinformed, one sided, nasty and never challenged. Like you say, I don't know how he is allowed to get away with it. Steve Allen really does bring down the LBC brand.
According to Iain Dale, Steve Allen never does politics in his show. Yeah, right.
The truth is that SA almost always covers politics but worse than just about any show on LBC in that it is misinformed, one sided, nasty and never challenged. Like you say, I don't know how he is allowed to get away with it. Steve Allen really does bring down the LBC brand.
Thankyou, I thought I was Just being 'Mrs Angry' - its very unfair that he is allowed an unchallenged forum to air his unpleasant views - can't be right
I think Bob Crow's comments are insensitive but then Thatcher could also be very insensitive and celebrated deaths. Let's not forget Thatcher told us to "rejoice at that news" of killing of 321 Argentinians when the Belgrano was sunk. These people had wives, partners, children and mothers; their deaths weren't something to rejoice at. Denis Healey was right when he said Thatcher "glories in slaughter".
I think Bob Crow's comments are insensitive but then Thatcher could also be very insensitive and celebrated deaths. Let's not forget Thatcher told us to "rejoice at that news" of killing of 321 Argentinians when the Belgrano was sunk. These people had wives, partners, children and mothers; their deaths weren't something to rejoice at. Denis Healey was right when he said Thatcher "glories in slaughter".
and there's another left wing lie.
She did not say 'rejoice' at the sinking of the Belgrano, it was at the liberation of South Georgia,done without any reported casualties.
I'm not disagreeing with you (yet!), but could I ask why you believe this is OK?
My suspicion is that you really think that 'people who appear to abuse benefits' should do this. And if that's the case, then I think it's worth thinking about just what percentage of poeple that really is. It's nowhere near as many as the media or govt would have you believe.
However, if you think that anyone on JSA (which is only 3% of the welfare budget, remember) should do this work, then I have to ask why. And when. And what possible benefit they or society would get out of it.
No i believe all people on benefits should do it, it keeps the work ethic in people as well as being good because of learning/improving people skills as well as other new skills. This doesn't have to be in commercial stores like poundworld it can include volunteering work as well for things that interest the person receiving the benefits.
I know if i were made redundant through no fault of my own it would drive me crackers sitting in the house day in day out. 15 hours is not a lot and still leaves plenty of time for searching for jobs, i currently do a 40 hour week and still have time to look at jobs in my sector of work that i would like to work in again.
Thankyou, I thought I was Just being 'Mrs Angry' - its very unfair that he is allowed an unchallenged forum to air his unpleasant views - can't be right
Its not though is it, if Steve just had his view then the program would be imbalanced and he would have been given an ofcom. By reading a few texts/articles that don't agree with his view out he restores that balance, he can slate that as much as he likes but he's still read it out giving the program an alternative view.
No i believe all people on benefits should do it, it keeps the work ethic in people as well as being good because of learning/improving people skills as well as other new skills. This doesn't have to be in commercial stores like poundworld it can include volunteering work as well for things that interest the person receiving the benefits.
I know if i were made redundant through no fault of my own it would drive me crackers sitting in the house day in day out. 15 hours is not a lot and still leaves plenty of time for searching for jobs, i currently do a 40 hour week and still have time to look at jobs in my sector of work that i would like to work in again.
Thanks for the reply. Now I am going to disagree with you.
There are lots of arguments against this, not least that this actually takes jobs away, because work ends up being done for free instead. Also, the kind of work offered to short-term temps is very rarely useful to someone's experience, especially not someone who has been to Uni, say.
But I want to concentrate on what you said about yourself, If you were made redundant, I'd bet you wouldn't be bored at home, because you would go out and volunteer off your own bat. And it makes you a good volunteer, targetting the skills you want to learn that will be useful to you. As someone in the voluntary sector/social care sector, I most definitely do NOT want unwilling and disinterested 'volunteers' inflicted on me, who could do more harm than good to the cause. It's hard enough finding decent paid staff on the crappy wages we are now forced to offer because of the massive cuts. I don't think people have any idea just how many service providers are close to going out of business at the moment, and how that will leave disabled and older people in the lurch. It's disgusting.
The bottom line for me is that there are, in reality, very few people who need a firecracker up their bottoms, and these policies end up punishing those who least need it. I found the hounding of that woman who refused to work at Poundland utterly disgusting. She was volunteering in a way that she had sought out and that would be genuinely useful to her career. However, she was forced to do a pointless, useless piece of work, of no benefit whatsover to her learning or experience or career path.
I didn't shed any tears either. If they weren't prepared for the consequences, they shouldn't have invaded.
At least we were defending our own, unlike Blair in Iraq.
I didn't shed any tears either. If they weren't prepared for the consequences, they shouldn't have invaded.
At least we were defending our own, unlike Blair in Iraq.
and the whole thing in the Falklands led to the collapse of the despotic regime in Argentina and democracy being introduced. Surely most would say that was a good thing? I remember the arguments against the taskforce going out there by the opposition of the time, so it's very unlikely they would have done what she did and gone anyway. British people might still be prisoners in their own home and Argentinians might still be being 'disappeared'.
Comments
I think the very nature of workfare means that potential jobs are dangled in front of faces like cash-flavoured carrots.
The government have always been eager to push the notion about workfare being short-term and short hours and for young people. The reality is the, for some people, it's been a rolling programme at the same place, often for much longer hours. This is one of issues that appears to have 'helped' the Wilkinson's chain withdraw from the programme. People were coming forward saying how they'd been on the same placements for many months and working 40+ hours and still having to look for work, attend the job centre. The Universal Credit/Jobsearch issue is going to place everyone in a similar bind: full time workfare and having to spend 30 or so hours a week looking for work, attending Job Centre &c.
You might be interested to know that UKIP's welfare policy includes complete phase out of housing benefit and council tax benefit for people in private rented housing and replaced with a workfare system where they perform workfare for that money. Note, that 90+% of all new housing benefit claimants are actually in work. They want people already in work, to work extra hours for free to make up the shortfall between low wages and extortionate private rents. All social housing tenants aside from the very elderly and those too ill to do any work at all (keep in mind ATOS have just judged a woman with mental age of 3-years-old 'fit for work') will also have to perform workfare. You're talking about, literally, millions of people doing workfare. It doesn't take a genius to see as to how this will impact the paid employment market.
There's absolutely no rhyme or reason to workfare and no real argument for it either.
Not to forget people with terminal cancer and others with Alzheimers.
I'm not disagreeing with you (yet!), but could I ask why you believe this is OK?
My suspicion is that you really think that 'people who appear to abuse benefits' should do this. And if that's the case, then I think it's worth thinking about just what percentage of poeple that really is. It's nowhere near as many as the media or govt would have you believe.
However, if you think that anyone on JSA (which is only 3% of the welfare budget, remember) should do this work, then I have to ask why. And when. And what possible benefit they or society would get out of it.
This is a hard thing to articulate. I think most people, on some level, kind of agree with the general principle of this, at least on the surface. It's only when you look below the surface and at the actual implications of what this means.
Many people use the memes they hear on LBC, Daily Mail and so on for confirmation bias but, again, when you look past this, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It addresses 'the something for nothing benefits culture' - doesn't explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who receive benefits (whether JSA or housing benefit &c) have worked, have put into the system. In fact, in the case of tax credits, housing benefit and so on, they're actually still in work. I thought this point was well made by Nick Abbot, last night. I hope this was news to some people and went some way towards awareness as to what's really going on.
The other point people need to look at is that, it's OK suggesting that people do 'x, y and z' jobs in return for benefits, but like to skirt around the issue that in every field of employment that's mentioned (labouring, litter picking, low-end retail &c), these are fields of employment many people rely on for work, are already precarious and insecure, and will mean that these will no longer be open to paid job opportunities.
I genuinely believe that workfare is the 'politics of spite' as there's absolutely no argument for it at all.
I agree with your other posts.
Oh...I would love a Daily Heil writer (I refuse to call them journalists) to sue over someone calling them a liar.
Surely you didn't expect him to lie, did you?
I hear too that he said Paris Brown should "rot in hell".
Hmmm, a 17 year old girl, saying some silly things, it must be said, but "rot in hell"???
She's just 17.
And she was aged between 14 and 16 when she sent her tweets. Did you hear Duncan Barkes' show a couple of nights ago? He was fully supportive of Paris, some of his callers were not, they vented their spleen, it was most uncomfortable listening. I really do despair sometimes:(
I wonder if you get the amount of comments to your posts that you expect.
Personally, I never read them because they are, usually, so long. My guess is that some others may feel the same.
I guess the cry to look beyond the headines will always fall on a certain number of deaf ears.
I find PoM's posts very interesting and well-informed, which is just what this second thread needs, IMO.
I seem to recall having a similar edict handed down to me by you many moons ago deploring my long posts and getting a PM from dear departed Wolfie telling me to ignore it.
I thought at the time it was excellent advice and I still do.
People should feel free to post as long or as short a post as they want to.
It is entirely up to them.
Nobody else.
According to Iain Dale, Steve Allen never does politics in his show. Yeah, right.
The truth is that SA almost always covers politics but worse than just about any show on LBC in that it is misinformed, one sided, nasty and never challenged. Like you say, I don't know how he is allowed to get away with it. Steve Allen really does bring down the LBC brand.
Thankyou, I thought I was Just being 'Mrs Angry' - its very unfair that he is allowed an unchallenged forum to air his unpleasant views - can't be right
I think Bob Crow's comments are insensitive but then Thatcher could also be very insensitive and celebrated deaths. Let's not forget Thatcher told us to "rejoice at that news" of killing of 321 Argentinians when the Belgrano was sunk. These people had wives, partners, children and mothers; their deaths weren't something to rejoice at. Denis Healey was right when he said Thatcher "glories in slaughter".
and there's another left wing lie.
She did not say 'rejoice' at the sinking of the Belgrano, it was at the liberation of South Georgia,done without any reported casualties.
No i believe all people on benefits should do it, it keeps the work ethic in people as well as being good because of learning/improving people skills as well as other new skills. This doesn't have to be in commercial stores like poundworld it can include volunteering work as well for things that interest the person receiving the benefits.
I know if i were made redundant through no fault of my own it would drive me crackers sitting in the house day in day out. 15 hours is not a lot and still leaves plenty of time for searching for jobs, i currently do a 40 hour week and still have time to look at jobs in my sector of work that i would like to work in again.
Its not though is it, if Steve just had his view then the program would be imbalanced and he would have been given an ofcom. By reading a few texts/articles that don't agree with his view out he restores that balance, he can slate that as much as he likes but he's still read it out giving the program an alternative view.
Thanks for the reply. Now I am going to disagree with you.
There are lots of arguments against this, not least that this actually takes jobs away, because work ends up being done for free instead. Also, the kind of work offered to short-term temps is very rarely useful to someone's experience, especially not someone who has been to Uni, say.
But I want to concentrate on what you said about yourself, If you were made redundant, I'd bet you wouldn't be bored at home, because you would go out and volunteer off your own bat. And it makes you a good volunteer, targetting the skills you want to learn that will be useful to you. As someone in the voluntary sector/social care sector, I most definitely do NOT want unwilling and disinterested 'volunteers' inflicted on me, who could do more harm than good to the cause. It's hard enough finding decent paid staff on the crappy wages we are now forced to offer because of the massive cuts. I don't think people have any idea just how many service providers are close to going out of business at the moment, and how that will leave disabled and older people in the lurch. It's disgusting.
The bottom line for me is that there are, in reality, very few people who need a firecracker up their bottoms, and these policies end up punishing those who least need it. I found the hounding of that woman who refused to work at Poundland utterly disgusting. She was volunteering in a way that she had sought out and that would be genuinely useful to her career. However, she was forced to do a pointless, useless piece of work, of no benefit whatsover to her learning or experience or career path.
The Sun can answer for its own headlines. This is about another incorrect assumption of what Thatcher said or didn't say.
I certainly don't recall her shedding any tears.
Do you recall Tony Blair shedding tears then?
At least we were defending our own, unlike Blair in Iraq.
and the whole thing in the Falklands led to the collapse of the despotic regime in Argentina and democracy being introduced. Surely most would say that was a good thing? I remember the arguments against the taskforce going out there by the opposition of the time, so it's very unlikely they would have done what she did and gone anyway. British people might still be prisoners in their own home and Argentinians might still be being 'disappeared'.