UK Wants Unemployed Youth to Do Unpaid Work for the State. State Sponsored Slavery or.....?

originally posted by: grainofsand
Oh and if you wanna cry troll then how about beating me down with your superior argument skills

Already did.... read up dude.
You attacked me for where I live and said I don't live in the real world.
We were debating until you started with the insults and assumptions.
You can't debate - which is why you resorted to petty little posts.

All my posts and points are up there, still waiting to be answered.

When you come out from under your bridge, let me know.

a reply to: blupblup
[head popped up from under bridge]
Your world is beautiful, love it lol,

...not quite sure what we're arguing about though, unless you're saying there are no lazy bastards rinsing benefits in the uk lol.

Well I guess you wanted to play devil's advocate, or so you said?
God knows why we're still going on. I posted this thinking it would end...

originally posted by: blupblup
a reply to: grainofsand


This whole thing is about whether forcing people to work without pay (Benefits are not pay, they are a benefit paid when you're out of work or unable to work) is just and fair and something that is acceptable.
If there is work for these people to do, pay them.

We have a minimum wage law in this country.

They either meet that amount or the "scheme" should be deemed illegal and forced/slave labour in my opinion.

That is what this is all about.

If companies can keep using this slave labour, which they have, Poundland, Tesco, Argos, Boots...many, many others, then WHY would they hire real, paid staff.
It doesn't solve the issue... it creates a worse issue.

The Tory Party are scum... they are not doing this to help the youth, to get people back into work... they are doing it to help business by giving them free, literally free labour.
Even if it's community based work, cutting grass, painting walls... whatever, they are still jobs... paid jobs carried out by council staff, public sector staff, who have had their jobs CUT by the very same Tory Party who are now looking to fill them with free, slave labour.

If you and others can't see a problem with this... can't see that this is a Pandora's Box with huge implications.... then there's not much point in going round and round really.

You said you didn't give a toss and were playing devil's advocate...then when I replied to another member about the figures for unemployment etc, then you decided to carry it on.

It's all on the last page mate, go check it out.




Yes there are work-shy lazy people... we know that, no punishing everyone wont solve it.

We see it differently, or the same and you're just arguing for arguing's sake, who knows man.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: blupblup
[head popped up from under bridge]
Your world is beautiful, love it lol,

...not quite sure what we're arguing about though, unless you're saying there are no lazy bastards rinsing benefits in the uk lol.

Sorry to say that I gave up a long time ago...on my OWN THREAD!

I have no idea what the argument is about either.

So, all of you...PLAY NICE or I'm gonna turn this car around and no Disneyland for any of you dammit!...

Peace

a reply to: jude11
Good thread though

Why is work being considered as a punishment? It is an opportunity

While I agree that it is not particularly attractive to have to work for less than minimum wage it does address some issues. It gives the claimant work experience and allows them to justify how they have spent their time, which are commonly used reasons for people saying they were rejected at interview stage.

It is good for mental and physical health, reducing the levels of depressive mental health conditions.

It creates a work for your money attitude that is often lacking.

As for the 1.9 million people out of work, that includes all people of working age. The proposed scheme is only aimed at those aged 18-25 to break the 3rd gen benefits chain. These are the people with the most difficult time getting a first job due to lack of experience.

I doubt that we will ever agree on this subject. It tends to polarise opinion too much.

a reply to: PaddyInf

But that's the whole point, there not working for money, they are working for there benefits plus a tenner. How can "they" pay them JSA(Job Seekers Allowance) which is there so they can subside and actively seek employment, when they have the poor souls doing slave labour for 30 hours a week?

£10 the kind of cash monies you pay the local kids to mow the lawn or cut the hedge. The only thing these type of forced work programs will produce is even more contempt toward our society.

You know what i propose? Have the bankers and political scum that most lightly come up with these nonsensical demoralising schemes carry out the indentured servitude for six months at the same rate of pay, if they are still standing at the end of that time period then implement said work related programs.

Tell you this i would bet £100,000 they fall on there arse inside a fortnight.

a reply to: jude11

Those burgers won't flip themselves you know!

Unemployed working for benefits is a contradiction in terms. A benefit is a benefit, a job is waged.

All working for benefits will do is take away a waged job and prevent the person from getting off benefits.

Now...training, real productive training i would agree with...not cutting wage costs for corporations who will promise to offer a full time, waged job for the unemployed person, but many will either be sacked just before their unpaid slave labour period ends, or otherwise make sure the position is no longer available due to cut backs etc.

And in the meantime, the corporation gets free, slave labour and increases profits.

Kids at school ought to be offered a choice at aged 13 or 14.

If they are not academically gifted let's say, they ought to be given the choice to continue on with academic learning and probably ultimately leave school with no qualifications to be dumped into the social security system, or they choose to be trained in one or more of the trades, something that will give them real world qualifications and a real chance at either setting up their own small businesses or a better chance at finding a job within that trade.

I'm talking real full time training, not some mickey mouse work experience or day release crap.

Bricklaying, Plumbing, Electrician, Mechanical engineering, Carpentry, PC construction and repair, Service technician, and so on and on...they can be trained in a college setting for four days a week, with the fifth day learning and honing the basic three 'R's'.

It would make so much more sense to provide real recognised training and qualifications in a trade for kids who are just not academic and will never be academically inclined, than to churn out demoralised, hopeless and illiterate kids who go straight on the dole without much chance of a career unless flipping burgers or stacking supermarket shelves counts as a career these days.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
Why is work being considered as a punishment? It is an opportunity

While I agree that it is not particularly attractive to have to work for less than minimum wage it does address some issues. It gives the claimant work experience and allows them to justify how they have spent their time, which are commonly used reasons for people saying they were rejected at interview stage.

It is good for mental and physical health, reducing the levels of depressive mental health conditions.

I loved being forced into slave labour, it did wonders for my mental and physical health, self esteem and taught me a great work ethic. i even reduced the levels of my mental and depressive health condition. Said no Jew employed at IG Farben ever.

Funny how these threads always seem to pop up after a channel 5 tv program about benefits Britain has been on telly. Aired by producer Richard Desmond. Owner of channel 5 and the daily express, plus multiple pornography titles. Also largest donor to ukip and good pals with Gideon Osbourne. Why do think people enjoy watching these tv programmes so much? Is it so they can look down on others and judge from their high horses? Or are people interested in benefits claimants lives. These hit pieces just pit poor people against other poor people to create Twitter event tv, where Twitter users can say how disgusting other people are. It's basically tv for fascists.

Knowyour real enemy en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: j4y303

I have been thinking of the same idea for a while, if you want all these benefits then you should do community work. Why should I pay my taxes, work 6 days a week to pay for a roof over my head and feed my family and pay for them to sit at home. I will admit our system is seriously flawed however I do not see making people clean up my streets or clean graffiti etc for their huge benefits a problem.

Why should anyone do a full week's physical work for no wages when everyone else who works gets paid a wage for their labour?
Why should unemployment benefits be paid to people who are employed?
Why should law-abiding unemployed people be forced to do more hours of community work/service than convicted offenders?

If there is a job that needs doing in the community then why not pay someone a wage to do it so they can get off the taxpayer teat and pay their own way in life, like you do? Wouldn't that be better for taxpayers like you?

You begrudge people their benefits, and at the same time you insist they should continue to be paid benefits instead of a wage. Why do you prefer that when they work they continue to be supported with your taxes? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I just want to understand why taxpaying people such as yourself who hate benefit claimants, are not insisting that claimants be given paid work to do so they won't need the benefits you resent so much. Why do you think they shouldn't get any wages?

Can anyone please explain to me?

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Love it when Godwins Law comes into effect!

Godwins Law

Do you love it really. Just calling it as I see it.

a reply to: doobydoll

Another way to answer his question of "Why should I pay my taxes, work 6 days a week to pay for a roof over my head and feed my family and pay for them to sit at home." would be...so you can claim benefits when you are put out of work, made redundant or fall ill and cannot work...that's why.

Oh, that and to pay the £100 - £150 Billion for toys like Trident, £20 -£30 Billion for Olympic games and £100's of Billions for lie based, contrived Middle Eastern wars.

Perhaps he prefers his tax money to be wasted on things like these instead of supporting poor, ill or dejected members of our society..takes all sorts i suppose.

a reply to: MysterX

I'm just baffled with some people's way of thinking. They hate the fact their taxes are spent on benefits for the unemployed, but in the next breath they are all for these same benefits being paid to these same people when they are put to work.

I thought taxpayers WANTED people to come off benefits, not stay on them. And the only way to achieve this is to PAY them for the work they do.

PROBLEM: Too many lazy people on benefits, a burden on unhappy, resentful taxpayers.

GOAL: Make them work and support themselves.

SOLUTION: If they won't find a job, find one for them, pay them a wage, and stop their benefits.

CONCLUSION: Lazy people are now doing paid work and not claiming benefits = happy, unburdened taxpayers.

Anyone disagree with this? If so, why?

originally posted by: PaddyInf
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Love it when Godwins Law comes into effect!

Godwins Law

I mentioned Neither the Nazi's nor Hitler, i did however mention a group of people forced to work for free by a huge corporation for financial gain.

Maybe you would like to claim higher ground here by stating something like, "Well,, they did get free B&B, Bread, Water, Free haircuts for life? Free Dentel plan. ie ( removal of fillings) and a pair of smashing stripy pojammies..?

a reply to: doobydoll

doobydoll,

I think the real problem is that government do not take a proper amount of responsibility for the number of jobs that are available at one time. They prefer to shuffle responsibility for "job creation" toward the private sector. The problem with that, is that we are only notionally comming out of a recessionary period just at the moment, and jobs are at a premium in terms of availability in many areas. Contrary to the popular notion amongst the terminally thick, that people should move to work, a person ought to be able to find work where they live, and there is a simple reason for that.

That reason is as follows:

If you can afford to move to find work, then you are not in a position of destitution, or in need of state aid. People who ARE in need of state aid through lack of work, despite being employable, do not have that sort of freedom of movement.

Furthermore, much of the scramble to reclaim benefit money by the government, is to obfuscate the fact that the government is losing money at a rate of knots, due to poorly drafted contracts between its various departments and the private companies which supply them, many of which fail entirely to pay the correct level of tax on what they make from the deals. So they overspend on contracts with companies which overcharge for goods and services, and then fail to reclaim tax on that overspend.

So yes, in essence you are right, there are solutions to the MINORITY problem of lazy people on benefit, but the problem only APPEARS to be as big as it is, and as big of a deal as it is, because there is a shell game running, and it is being run by the government, the companies which now supply its various departments, and the accountants of those companies, a shell game which defrauds the taxpayer of BILLIONS of pounds per department, per year.

If that were not actually happening, the government could pay for ten times as much state aid for the poor, the workless, the disabled, and the elderly, not to mention putting right a couple of the things that have been ailing the NHS lately, as well as making some improvements to the armed forces, the police, and removing the necessity for University tuition fees, as well as in several other branches of government responsibility, which have gone begging in the last little while.

They will not do that however, they will not fix these things, and I believe the reason for that is that these contracts happen to be very lucrative in kickbacks for certain persons in the establishment.

Thank god... a string of sensible posts and posters, I wondered where you were?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: doobydoll

doobydoll,

I think the real problem is that government do not take a proper amount of responsibility for the number of jobs that are available at one time. They prefer to shuffle responsibility for "job creation" toward the private sector. The problem with that, is that we are only notionally comming out of a recessionary period just at the moment, and jobs are at a premium in terms of availability in many areas. Contrary to the popular notion amongst the terminally thick, that people should move to work, a person ought to be able to find work where they live, and there is a simple reason for that.

That reason is as follows:

If you can afford to move to find work, then you are not in a position of destitution, or in need of state aid. People who ARE in need of state aid through lack of work, despite being employable, do not have that sort of freedom of movement.

Furthermore, much of the scramble to reclaim benefit money by the government, is to obfuscate the fact that the government is losing money at a rate of knots, due to poorly drafted contracts between its various departments and the private companies which supply them, many of which fail entirely to pay the correct level of tax on what they make from the deals. So they overspend on contracts with companies which overcharge for goods and services, and then fail to reclaim tax on that overspend.

So yes, in essence you are right, there are solutions to the MINORITY problem of lazy people on benefit, but the problem only APPEARS to be as big as it is, and as big of a deal as it is, because there is a shell game running, and it is being run by the government, the companies which now supply its various departments, and the accountants of those companies, a shell game which defrauds the taxpayer of BILLIONS of pounds per department, per year.

If that were not actually happening, the government could pay for ten times as much state aid for the poor, the workless, the disabled, and the elderly, not to mention putting right a couple of the things that have been ailing the NHS lately, as well as making some improvements to the armed forces, the police, and removing the necessity for University tuition fees, as well as in several other branches of government responsibility, which have gone begging in the last little while.

They will not do that however, they will not fix these things, and I believe the reason for that is that these contracts happen to be very lucrative in kickbacks for certain persons in the establishment.

Good post Bang on the nail.

My post was to point out the hypocrisy of some posters on here, specifically the benefit-haters - they say they want folk off benefits, but are cheering for them to stay on benefits when they work.

If people aren't paid for their work, how can they ever get off benefits?

Hatred blinds some people from any logical thought.