"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."
Once again I see nothing wrong with that.
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."
Makes pretty good fucking sense if you ask me. Make all the unemployed and welfare (under 50) work for free until they find a job with higher pay. This keeps jobs filled, the economical machine rolling, and most of all (hopefully) less employment. This could tie in beautifully with mandatory welfare Drug testing, as it would ensure a higher ratio of people actually seeking jobs, to people seeking employment to keep their addiction rolling. The addicts wouldn't have any money because unemployment won't pay them, forcing them to get a job, seek rehabilitation, or fucking die from uselessness.
Makes pretty good fucking sense if you ask me. Make all the unemployed and welfare (under 50) work for free until they find a job with higher pay. This keeps jobs filled, the economical machine rolling, and most of all (hopefully) less employment. This could tie in beautifully with mandatory welfare Drug testing, as it would ensure a higher ratio of people actually seeking jobs, to people seeking employment to keep their addiction rolling. The addicts wouldn't have any money because unemployment won't pay them, forcing them to get a job, seek rehabilitation, or fucking die from uselessness.
Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
[quote user=proofinlife] Makes pretty good fucking sense if you ask me. Make all the unemployed and welfare (under 50) work for free until they find a job with higher pay. This keeps jobs filled, the economical machine rolling, and most of all (hopefully) less employment. This could tie in beautifully with mandatory welfare Drug testing, as it would ensure a higher ratio of people actually seeking jobs, to people seeking employment to keep their addiction rolling. The addicts wouldn't have any money because unemployment won't pay them, forcing them to get a job, seek rehabilitation, or fucking die from uselessness. [/quote]
i was gone say something, then i saw this
[quote user=Scobiewan] Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian. [/quote]
proofinlife wrote:
Makes pretty good fucking sense if you ask me. Make all the unemployed and welfare (under 50) work for free until they find a job with higher pay. This keeps jobs filled, the economical machine rolling, and most of all (hopefully) less employment. This could tie in beautifully with mandatory welfare Drug testing, as it would ensure a higher ratio of people actually seeking jobs, to people seeking employment to keep their addiction rolling. The addicts wouldn't have any money because unemployment won't pay them, forcing them to get a job, seek rehabilitation, or fucking die from uselessness.
i was gone say something, then i saw this
Scobiewan wrote:
Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
[quote user=Scobiewan] Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free?[/quote]
To have workers, instead of having to get new staff every week, train them and have poop on the shelves. Also those are SHOPS, so the main work cleaning and re-stocking the shelves happens in night shifts, daytime shift is small and they are basicly wankers.
Overall even if 1 out of 10 gets to have a job, it's still better than sitting on your ass at home doing nothing.
Also it gets them moving around, they work and don't fall into vegetative state. I know I did, when I was unemployed.
Scobiewan wrote:
Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free?
To have workers, instead of having to get new staff every week, train them and have poop on the shelves. Also those are SHOPS, so the main work cleaning and re-stocking the shelves happens in night shifts, daytime shift is small and they are basicly wankers.
Overall even if 1 out of 10 gets to have a job, it's still better than sitting on your ass at home doing nothing.
Also it gets them moving around, they work and don't fall into vegetative state. I know I did, when I was unemployed.
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ?
I see the situation like this :
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer] [quote user=Scobiewan]Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free?[/quote]
To have workers, instead of having to get new staff every week, train them and have poop on the shelves. Also those are SHOPS, so the main work cleaning and re-stocking the shelves happens in night shifts, daytime shift is small and they are basicly wankers.
Overall even if 1 out of 10 gets to have a job, it's still better than sitting on your ass at home doing nothing.
Also it gets them moving around, they work and don't fall into vegetative state. I know I did, when I was unemployed. [/quote]
No way, dude. 10 weeks unpaid per person. That means for every 5 slaves, you can let one person go, that's one person less contributing taxes and NI, and 5 more people being supported by the government but who work for a corporation. Unless you mean there'd be a surplus of staff, which means you don't need them in the first place.
You're not thinking this through at all. Why did you sit on your arse on the dole for months then? Why didn't you go off down to Blanch' shopping centre and work for free? Oh, that's right. Slavery isn't for you. But now you're a student, suddenly it is.
Weird.
LithuanianLabourer wrote:
Scobiewan wrote:
Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free?
To have workers, instead of having to get new staff every week, train them and have poop on the shelves. Also those are SHOPS, so the main work cleaning and re-stocking the shelves happens in night shifts, daytime shift is small and they are basicly wankers.
Overall even if 1 out of 10 gets to have a job, it's still better than sitting on your ass at home doing nothing.
Also it gets them moving around, they work and don't fall into vegetative state. I know I did, when I was unemployed.
No way, dude. 10 weeks unpaid per person. That means for every 5 slaves, you can let one person go, that's one person less contributing taxes and NI, and 5 more people being supported by the government but who work for a corporation. Unless you mean there'd be a surplus of staff, which means you don't need them in the first place.
You're not thinking this through at all. Why did you sit on your arse on the dole for months then? Why didn't you go off down to Blanch' shopping centre and work for free? Oh, that's right. Slavery isn't for you. But now you're a student, suddenly it is.
[quote user=Scobiewan] Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian. [/quote]
That would be true.... if they were working for free. They are getting UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS. They are being PAID. The government has every right to tell these freeloaders to go out and work for whoever the fuck they want people to work for. You live off a government system, don't be surprised when the government starts putting up requirements that show you are actually interested in finding a job.
If someone is using the system to find a job, this will help them find a job as it will keep them paid and also get them into the workforce to find potential openings. Why should the tax payers and government be responsible to make sure these freeloaders keep freeloading?
If someone is using the system to sit on their ass and play WoW all day, and refuse to go out and earn their support checks, they can fuck right off and starve.
There most definitely is room for everyone in American to work, there's no denying it. But you're ignoring the facts that most of those people do not want to work and want to sit around collecting free money for absolutely nothing. Why not make use of them in areas that can't seem to find workers?
You live off the government, don't be surprised when they want something in return for keeping your ass high.
Scobiewan wrote:
Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
That would be true.... if they were working for free. They are getting UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS. They are being PAID. The government has every right to tell these freeloaders to go out and work for whoever the fuck they want people to work for. You live off a government system, don't be surprised when the government starts putting up requirements that show you are actually interested in finding a job.
If someone is using the system to find a job, this will help them find a job as it will keep them paid and also get them into the workforce to find potential openings. Why should the tax payers and government be responsible to make sure these freeloaders keep freeloading?
If someone is using the system to sit on their ass and play WoW all day, and refuse to go out and earn their support checks, they can fuck right off and starve.
There most definitely is room for everyone in American to work, there's no denying it. But you're ignoring the facts that most of those people do not want to work and want to sit around collecting free money for absolutely nothing. Why not make use of them in areas that can't seem to find workers?
You live off the government, don't be surprised when they want something in return for keeping your ass high.
^Not because they let loads of staff go because there's no fucking jobs!!
If there's a chance of a job, why don't they get people to apply for interviews and pick the best candidates? Why does there need to be a free labour component? Or is it because there is no work, that's why there's no interviews? Where are all these interviews with no applicants? This staff shortage you're talking about flew well under the radar.
^Not because they let loads of staff go because there's no fucking jobs!!
If there's a chance of a job, why don't they get people to apply for interviews and pick the best candidates? Why does there need to be a free labour component? Or is it because there is no work, that's why there's no interviews? Where are all these interviews with no applicants? This staff shortage you're talking about flew well under the radar.
my company does it , more so at this time of the year , and to tell you the truth , those that prove worthy get offered a contract "small or large" depending on need and worthiness , but the most of them simply cant be fucked, and get offered fuck all , those that are ok-good may not get a job due to wage budget constraints and the best are picked, if any were worth an offer.
[quote user=Scobiewan] Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them. Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian. [/quote]
You pay someone to work because you need the already trained staff to teach the new guys /fill,run the company/shop. the company I work for in my "area" alone are opening up 4 new stores in the "area" with another 2 being planned on new/just been planned retail parks/areas. These new stores take already payed/experianced staff ( sometimes giving them a promotion, like in my case im getting senior sales training so I'le be able to apply for the new stores/ take someones place in an old store that transfers out) so really somewhere in the company there will be x amount of jobs that will require new people to fill. so yeah at the mo they have no-one/hardly anyone to fill the gaps that are worth it . All the kids in we have doing these schemes have the best shot of a job ..right now
standing around talking or hiding in the warehouse will not land you a job , you want a contract you work like crazy to SHOW you are worth paying money for.
my company does it , more so at this time of the year , and to tell you the truth , those that prove worthy get offered a contract "small or large" depending on need and worthiness , but the most of them simply cant be fucked, and get offered fuck all , those that are ok-good may not get a job due to wage budget constraints and the best are picked, if any were worth an offer.
Scobiewan wrote:
Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them. Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
You pay someone to work because you need the already trained staff to teach the new guys /fill,run the company/shop. the company I work for in my "area" alone are opening up 4 new stores in the "area" with another 2 being planned on new/just been planned retail parks/areas. These new stores take already payed/experianced staff ( sometimes giving them a promotion, like in my case im getting senior sales training so I'le be able to apply for the new stores/ take someones place in an old store that transfers out) so really somewhere in the company there will be x amount of jobs that will require new people to fill. so yeah at the mo they have no-one/hardly anyone to fill the gaps that are worth it . All the kids in we have doing these schemes have the best shot of a job ..right now
standing around talking or hiding in the warehouse will not land you a job , you want a contract you work like crazy to SHOW you are worth paying money for.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=Scobiewan]Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.[/quote]
That would be true.... if they were working for free. They are getting UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS. They are being PAID. The government has every right to tell these freeloaders to go out and work for whoever the fuck they want people to work for. You live off a government system, don't be surprised when the government starts putting up requirements that show you are actually interested in finding a job.
If someone is using the system to find a job, this will help them find a job as it will keep them paid and also get them into the workforce to find potential openings.
If someone is using the system to sit on their ass and play WoW all day, and refuse to go out and earn their support checks, they can fuck right off and starve. [/quote]
also winning^
proofinlife wrote:
Scobiewan wrote:
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
That would be true.... if they were working for free. They are getting UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS. They are being PAID. The government has every right to tell these freeloaders to go out and work for whoever the fuck they want people to work for. You live off a government system, don't be surprised when the government starts putting up requirements that show you are actually interested in finding a job.
If someone is using the system to find a job, this will help them find a job as it will keep them paid and also get them into the workforce to find potential openings.
If someone is using the system to sit on their ass and play WoW all day, and refuse to go out and earn their support checks, they can fuck right off and starve.
[quote user=Scobiewan]If there's a chance of a job, why don't they get people to apply for interviews and pick the best candidates?[/quote]
It's boring shit job. What interview ?
"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
Also i'll quote myself :
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer] I see the situation like this :
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ? [/quote]
Scobiewan wrote:
If there's a chance of a job, why don't they get people to apply for interviews and pick the best candidates?
It's boring shit job. What interview ?
"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
Also i'll quote myself :
LithuanianLabourer wrote:
I see the situation like this :
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
I know in Canada all of our City workers are unionized, unless the service is completely contracted out (which a Union rep will still be the boss). A simple job like cleaning the sidewalk or picking up trash can get the Union in a dizzle and lawyers sicked on the municipal government. It's nice that these fortunate street walkers who do get the city jobs cleaning sidewalks or picking up trash, because they get paid union rates (16.70 an hour) to literally do fuck all.
I agree though, community work would be a good place to put them. But then again, so would businesses that financially prop up a community.
w1dg3t wrote:
why aint they doing community work?
I know in Canada all of our City workers are unionized, unless the service is completely contracted out (which a Union rep will still be the boss). A simple job like cleaning the sidewalk or picking up trash can get the Union in a dizzle and lawyers sicked on the municipal government. It's nice that these fortunate street walkers who do get the city jobs cleaning sidewalks or picking up trash, because they get paid union rates (16.70 an hour) to literally do fuck all.
I agree though, community work would be a good place to put them. But then again, so would businesses that financially prop up a community.
"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
[/quote]
So, what you're saying is, there's no training because it's a simple job that doesn't require training. Therefore, why not advertise the appointments? If there's jobs, people without jobs can apply and get them. Why do you want the government to subsidise industry?
I know you haven't thought it through, so I won't bother until you do. needless to say, you're talkin out your arse.
And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
Would you fuck.
I hope you all know you're cheering for fascism.
LithuanianLabourer wrote:
It's boring shit job. What interview ?
"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
So, what you're saying is, there's no training because it's a simple job that doesn't require training. Therefore, why not advertise the appointments? If there's jobs, people without jobs can apply and get them. Why do you want the government to subsidise industry?
I know you haven't thought it through, so I won't bother until you do. needless to say, you're talkin out your arse.
And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
[quote user=Scobiewan] I hope you all know you're cheering for fascism.
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer]"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
[/quote]
So, what you're saying is, there's no training because it's a simple job that doesn't require training. Therefore, why not advertise the appointments? If there's jobs, people without jobs can apply and get them. Why do you want the government to subsidise industry?
I know you haven't thought it through, so I won't bother until you do. needless to say, you're talkin out your arse.
And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
Would you fuck.
[/quote]
Again, this is all under the assumption that NO ON IS BEING PAID JACK SHIT. You're failing hard by ignoring this crucial point.
Slavery is only slavery when they are forced to do something against their will and deprives them of all human rights. They're being paid, and they're all doing this to keep their unemployment benefits so they can find jobs, eat, and pay bills. All of their rights are upheld. They can leave the job ANYTIME THEY WANT TO, they will just quit getting money for it.
A simple job is slavery to any lazy ass clown who wants to sit around all day. You're just playing a game of words.
Of all the socialists here, you are by far the clearly left of us all, as you seem to think that everyone should get everything handed to them, no questions asked.
Next you're going to say that you don't think Welfare should have drug testing, either, and that all junkies should live for free off your dollars.
Scobiewan wrote:
I hope you all know you're cheering for fascism.
LithuanianLabourer wrote:
"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
So, what you're saying is, there's no training because it's a simple job that doesn't require training. Therefore, why not advertise the appointments? If there's jobs, people without jobs can apply and get them. Why do you want the government to subsidise industry?
I know you haven't thought it through, so I won't bother until you do. needless to say, you're talkin out your arse.
And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
Would you fuck.
Again, this is all under the assumption that NO ON IS BEING PAID JACK SHIT. You're failing hard by ignoring this crucial point.
Slavery is only slavery when they are forced to do something against their will and deprives them of all human rights. They're being paid, and they're all doing this to keep their unemployment benefits so they can find jobs, eat, and pay bills. All of their rights are upheld. They can leave the job ANYTIME THEY WANT TO, they will just quit getting money for it.
A simple job is slavery to any lazy ass clown who wants to sit around all day. You're just playing a game of words.
Of all the socialists here, you are by far the clearly left of us all, as you seem to think that everyone should get everything handed to them, no questions asked.
Next you're going to say that you don't think Welfare should have drug testing, either, and that all junkies should live for free off your dollars.
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer] I see the situation like this :
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ? [/quote]
Again, this is only coming from my country's perspective, but our "EI" Employment Insurance as we call it, has this exact program in place. Businesses register with the EI Office to show that they have spots open that are generally reserved for training, or they just can't find workers. EI will send them workers for a 6 week run, each worker is assessed and hired if they do a good job. It's pretty simple and works very well for people who are actually out to find jobs. They'll even do it for people who are not currently on Employment Insurance, simply because it is in everyone interest to get someone employed.
We also have a Welfare system, and it's loosely stringent (if that makes sense). It forces people on Welfare who are not physically disabled or have and reason to not be working to go out and hand out 30 seperate fully filled out resumes and applications to businesses. These businesses report the application, and at the end of the month, the government checks if these organizations wanted them and scheduled an interview. If someone get an interview and fails, it's still A-OKAY, welfare will work with you to get that job next month. But if you get an interview and don't show up, or didn't hand any resumes out, or did a completely half ass job, consider your free money done for.
Just so everyone knows, if your country does not use an Employment Insurance type system. EI is different than welfare in that every working person in Canada must pay into it if they want to recieve benefits upon being fired (you must be fired or laid off, you cannot quit your job under any circumstances including sexual harrassment if you want EI, that's up to a court to decide your rights, not you or EI). Upon being fired, EI will calculate how much weekly you get based on how many hours you worked, your pay grade, and previous files you've had. You have 10 months of money coming to you that you paid out of your pockets anyway, so it really is a good system for those in a rocky career. For those who are in a career they know they won't be leaving, they can sign a government form which allows them to not pay into EI.
LithuanianLabourer wrote:
I see the situation like this :
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ?
Again, this is only coming from my country's perspective, but our "EI" Employment Insurance as we call it, has this exact program in place. Businesses register with the EI Office to show that they have spots open that are generally reserved for training, or they just can't find workers. EI will send them workers for a 6 week run, each worker is assessed and hired if they do a good job. It's pretty simple and works very well for people who are actually out to find jobs. They'll even do it for people who are not currently on Employment Insurance, simply because it is in everyone interest to get someone employed.
We also have a Welfare system, and it's loosely stringent (if that makes sense). It forces people on Welfare who are not physically disabled or have and reason to not be working to go out and hand out 30 seperate fully filled out resumes and applications to businesses. These businesses report the application, and at the end of the month, the government checks if these organizations wanted them and scheduled an interview. If someone get an interview and fails, it's still A-OKAY, welfare will work with you to get that job next month. But if you get an interview and don't show up, or didn't hand any resumes out, or did a completely half ass job, consider your free money done for.
Just so everyone knows, if your country does not use an Employment Insurance type system. EI is different than welfare in that every working person in Canada must pay into it if they want to recieve benefits upon being fired (you must be fired or laid off, you cannot quit your job under any circumstances including sexual harrassment if you want EI, that's up to a court to decide your rights, not you or EI). Upon being fired, EI will calculate how much weekly you get based on how many hours you worked, your pay grade, and previous files you've had. You have 10 months of money coming to you that you paid out of your pockets anyway, so it really is a good system for those in a rocky career. For those who are in a career they know they won't be leaving, they can sign a government form which allows them to not pay into EI.
[quote user=proofinlife] as you seem to think that everyone should get everything handed to them, no questions asked.
[/quote]
So what you're saying is that business should get everything handed to them, no questions asked. They just call up the Ministry of Worker Drones and get someone delivered, without paying anything for them? So it's socialism for business, capitalism for people? You're a nice chap.
This is a recession. There's 10+% unemployment all over the place. Zero unemployment is generally classed as anything around or under 4%. If unemployment was at that and businesses had a shortage of people applying for jobs, that's a different story. But when there aren't any jobs, you want someone to stay on employment benefit for 10 weeks more than necessary(assuming there is a full-time job), then take on a job and pay tax(again, assuming there is actually a job), rather than take up employment now, therefore robbing the state of ten weeks of tax contributions and 10 weeks dole. You don't understand that, that's fine. You want the government to pay wages for businesses, and I'm the socialist?
Unemployment levels have risen, for the windowlickers, that means that many of those unemployed now had a job in the recent past. What you're saying is effectively that all the tax they paid into the system will now be transferred to the business sector that laid them off in the form of free labour. "But it's not free!!" you whinge. No, it's not free. The state pays for it. It's free to the business. All you morons moan about redistribution of wealth, but what is this only redistributing tax money to businesses in the form of free labour?
If somewhere has a job, give it to someone and let the employer pay the wages and knock another person of the unemployment register.
Get a grip.
This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.
proofinlife wrote:
as you seem to think that everyone should get everything handed to them, no questions asked.
So what you're saying is that business should get everything handed to them, no questions asked. They just call up the Ministry of Worker Drones and get someone delivered, without paying anything for them? So it's socialism for business, capitalism for people? You're a nice chap.
This is a recession. There's 10+% unemployment all over the place. Zero unemployment is generally classed as anything around or under 4%. If unemployment was at that and businesses had a shortage of people applying for jobs, that's a different story. But when there aren't any jobs, you want someone to stay on employment benefit for 10 weeks more than necessary(assuming there is a full-time job), then take on a job and pay tax(again, assuming there is actually a job), rather than take up employment now, therefore robbing the state of ten weeks of tax contributions and 10 weeks dole. You don't understand that, that's fine. You want the government to pay wages for businesses, and I'm the socialist?
Unemployment levels have risen, for the windowlickers, that means that many of those unemployed now had a job in the recent past. What you're saying is effectively that all the tax they paid into the system will now be transferred to the business sector that laid them off in the form of free labour. "But it's not free!!" you whinge. No, it's not free. The state pays for it. It's free to the business. All you morons moan about redistribution of wealth, but what is this only redistributing tax money to businesses in the form of free labour?
If somewhere has a job, give it to someone and let the employer pay the wages and knock another person of the unemployment register.
Get a grip.
This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.
[quote user=Scobiewan] [quote user=proofinlife]as you seem to think that everyone should get everything handed to them, no questions asked.
[/quote]
So what you're saying is that business should get everything handed to them, no questions asked. They just call up the Ministry of Worker Drones and get someone delivered, without paying anything for them? So it's socialism for business, capitalism for people? You're a nice chap.
This is a recession. There's 10+% unemployment all over the place. Zero unemployment is generally classed as anything around or under 4%. If unemployment was at that and businesses had a shortage of people applying for jobs, that's a different story. But when there aren't any jobs, you want someone to stay on employment benefit for 10 weeks more than necessary(assuming there is a full-time job), then take on a job and pay tax(again, assuming there is actually a job), rather than take up employment now, therefore robbing the state of ten weeks of tax contributions and 10 weeks dole. You don't understand that, that's fine. You want the government to pay wages for businesses, and I'm the socialist?
Unemployment levels have risen, for the windowlickers, that means that many of those unemployed now had a job in the recent past. What you're saying is effectively that all the tax they paid into the system will now be transferred to the business sector that laid them off in the form of free labour. "But it's not free!!" you whinge. No, it's not free. The state pays for it. It's free to the business. All you morons moan about redistribution of wealth, but what is this only redistributing tax money to businesses in the form of free labour?
If somewhere has a job, give it to someone and let the employer pay the wages and knock another person of the unemployment register.
Get a grip.
This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here. [/quote]
Keep your palm on your face for yourself, scobie.
This isn't about the business, this thread has always been about the people.
Your original argument was that people were being forced into slavery by the state. I completely blew that out of the water. I also pointed out that necessary businesses get free labour in the form of paid workers to keep up their economical end of the deal and prevent them for going under and providing more jobs. If a business can't get people apply or stay there, what do you expect them to do, whither away and die (We are in a Recession, you know?)? Especially if this is a business in a key market for growth? If people were able to get jobs, don't you think they woud have gotten a job instead of resorting to a job fishing system like this? Exactly.
Now you're starting on a completely different argument and then claiming everyone is stupid for not seeing it your way.
If we were arguing about that, Scobie, maybe we would have been talking about that. But we weren't.
Maybe, just maybe, all of TAN aren't the morons, maybe you on your lonesome are the moron?
Scobiewan wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
as you seem to think that everyone should get everything handed to them, no questions asked.
So what you're saying is that business should get everything handed to them, no questions asked. They just call up the Ministry of Worker Drones and get someone delivered, without paying anything for them? So it's socialism for business, capitalism for people? You're a nice chap.
This is a recession. There's 10+% unemployment all over the place. Zero unemployment is generally classed as anything around or under 4%. If unemployment was at that and businesses had a shortage of people applying for jobs, that's a different story. But when there aren't any jobs, you want someone to stay on employment benefit for 10 weeks more than necessary(assuming there is a full-time job), then take on a job and pay tax(again, assuming there is actually a job), rather than take up employment now, therefore robbing the state of ten weeks of tax contributions and 10 weeks dole. You don't understand that, that's fine. You want the government to pay wages for businesses, and I'm the socialist?
Unemployment levels have risen, for the windowlickers, that means that many of those unemployed now had a job in the recent past. What you're saying is effectively that all the tax they paid into the system will now be transferred to the business sector that laid them off in the form of free labour. "But it's not free!!" you whinge. No, it's not free. The state pays for it. It's free to the business. All you morons moan about redistribution of wealth, but what is this only redistributing tax money to businesses in the form of free labour?
If somewhere has a job, give it to someone and let the employer pay the wages and knock another person of the unemployment register.
Get a grip.
This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.
Keep your palm on your face for yourself, scobie.
This isn't about the business, this thread has always been about the people.
Your original argument was that people were being forced into slavery by the state. I completely blew that out of the water. I also pointed out that necessary businesses get free labour in the form of paid workers to keep up their economical end of the deal and prevent them for going under and providing more jobs. If a business can't get people apply or stay there, what do you expect them to do, whither away and die (We are in a Recession, you know?)? Especially if this is a business in a key market for growth? If people were able to get jobs, don't you think they woud have gotten a job instead of resorting to a job fishing system like this? Exactly.
Now you're starting on a completely different argument and then claiming everyone is stupid for not seeing it your way.
If we were arguing about that, Scobie, maybe we would have been talking about that. But we weren't.
Maybe, just maybe, all of TAN aren't the morons, maybe you on your lonesome are the moron?
[quote user=Scobiewan] And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
Would you fuck.[/quote]
Infact you do need training for "my job" , everyone's training is redone/reassesed on a 6 month rota. I'l freely admit my job is unskilled, but still requires a fair amount of training. And no im not suggesting that companys shouldnt pay to train thier workers , as ive stated the company i work for does it on a6 month rota , I have no idea how much it would cost for the company but i dont think it would be cheap.
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
Scobiewan wrote:
And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
Would you fuck.
Infact you do need training for "my job" , everyone's training is redone/reassesed on a 6 month rota. I'l freely admit my job is unskilled, but still requires a fair amount of training. And no im not suggesting that companys shouldnt pay to train thier workers , as ive stated the company i work for does it on a6 month rota , I have no idea how much it would cost for the company but i dont think it would be cheap.
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
[quote user=Reddwarfnut] [quote user=Scobiewan]Would you fuck.[/quote]
Infact you do need training for "my job" , everyone's training is redone/reassesed on a 6 month rota. I'l freely admit my job is unskilled, but still requires a fair amount of training. And no im not suggesting that companys shouldnt pay to train thier workers , as ive stated the company i work for does it on a6 month rota , I have no idea how much it would cost for the company but i dont think it would be cheap.
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
[/quote]
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
Us real world chaps know that companies choose workers based on who is best for the job, not whether they're looking for a job or not. With that said, I could close up my business, officially claim unemployment, walk up to any Fortune 500 trading company and tell them to employ me because I need a job, and they will, regardless of my skills, and only because I need a job. This happens EVERY DAY in america, and there is no such thing as employment contention, job competition, minimal required education, etc according to Scobie.
Yeeeeahhh......
Reddwarfnut wrote:
Scobiewan wrote:
Would you fuck.
Infact you do need training for "my job" , everyone's training is redone/reassesed on a 6 month rota. I'l freely admit my job is unskilled, but still requires a fair amount of training. And no im not suggesting that companys shouldnt pay to train thier workers , as ive stated the company i work for does it on a6 month rota , I have no idea how much it would cost for the company but i dont think it would be cheap.
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
Us real world chaps know that companies choose workers based on who is best for the job, not whether they're looking for a job or not. With that said, I could close up my business, officially claim unemployment, walk up to any Fortune 500 trading company and tell them to employ me because I need a job, and they will, regardless of my skills, and only because I need a job. This happens EVERY DAY in america, and there is no such thing as employment contention, job competition, minimal required education, etc according to Scobie.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=Reddwarfnut]This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
[/quote]
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
Us real world chaps know that companies choose workers based on who is best for the job, not whether they're looking for a job or not. With that said, I could close up my business, officially claim unemployment, walk up to any Fortune 500 trading company and tell them to employ me because I need a job, and they will, regardless of my skills, and only because I need a job. This happens EVERY DAY in america, and there is no such thing as employment contention, job competition, minimal required education, etc according to Scobie.
Yeeeeahhh...... [/quote]
^ winning.
proofinlife wrote:
Reddwarfnut wrote:
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
Us real world chaps know that companies choose workers based on who is best for the job, not whether they're looking for a job or not. With that said, I could close up my business, officially claim unemployment, walk up to any Fortune 500 trading company and tell them to employ me because I need a job, and they will, regardless of my skills, and only because I need a job. This happens EVERY DAY in america, and there is no such thing as employment contention, job competition, minimal required education, etc according to Scobie.
I know English isn't your first language, so I'm happy to help.
slavery[ˈsleɪvərɪ]
n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4.(Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay
Please "Keep your palm on your face for yourself".
[quote user=Reddwarfnut]
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
[/quote]
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
The only way this is any way ethical is maybe trade apprenticeships or if there's people who simply refuse to work but are entitled to dole.
There's a scheme here for long term unemployed where you go to the state agency responsible and once you're approved for the scheme, you work 3 days a week and depending on the scheme in your area, you could be painting a school, receptionist at a museum or working in an old folks home etc. You only get about 50 quid extra, which is all covered by the state. You don't work for business, you work for your local community gaining actual experience, usually doing something you enjoy. I have no problem with that, and the schemes are oversubscribed everywhere. You can dress it up all you want, but once you've stacked one shelf, if you don't get the hang of it maybe you shouldn't be on the dole, you should be in an assisted living facility.
As an aside, dole isn't a living wage, it's to let you scrape along the bottom until you find work. Add up how much money you spend just so you can get to and from work, then subtract it from how much money you get on the dole. I'm thinking that after 10 weeks you'd be well in debt. I remember doing some bs course after college, I got a grant of around 100 quid a week, but the bus fare to and from the course was 20 quid alone, add rent and bills and I was fucked. Cheesy beans on toast is nice and alll, but after a few months it takes its toll.
Trickle up economics ftw.
proofinlife wrote:
Inane Friedman bullshit
I know English isn't your first language, so I'm happy to help.
slavery[ˈsleɪvərɪ]
n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4.(Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay
Please "Keep your palm on your face for yourself".
Reddwarfnut wrote:
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
The only way this is any way ethical is maybe trade apprenticeships or if there's people who simply refuse to work but are entitled to dole.
There's a scheme here for long term unemployed where you go to the state agency responsible and once you're approved for the scheme, you work 3 days a week and depending on the scheme in your area, you could be painting a school, receptionist at a museum or working in an old folks home etc. You only get about 50 quid extra, which is all covered by the state. You don't work for business, you work for your local community gaining actual experience, usually doing something you enjoy. I have no problem with that, and the schemes are oversubscribed everywhere. You can dress it up all you want, but once you've stacked one shelf, if you don't get the hang of it maybe you shouldn't be on the dole, you should be in an assisted living facility.
As an aside, dole isn't a living wage, it's to let you scrape along the bottom until you find work. Add up how much money you spend just so you can get to and from work, then subtract it from how much money you get on the dole. I'm thinking that after 10 weeks you'd be well in debt. I remember doing some bs course after college, I got a grant of around 100 quid a week, but the bus fare to and from the course was 20 quid alone, add rent and bills and I was fucked. Cheesy beans on toast is nice and alll, but after a few months it takes its toll.
I know English isn't your first language, so I'm happy to help.
slavery[ˈsleɪvərɪ]
n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4.(Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay
Please "Keep your palm on your face for yourself".
[/quote]
Actually, i'll keep my palm on YOUR face.
"work done in harsh conditions for low pay "
Please name these so-called harsh conditions and slightly higher than minimum wage earnings, when these people have had nothing taken from them (in fact, they have a few MORE rights given to them than the average joe), and only opportunity given. Harsh Conditions, nope. Low Pay, nope. Forced into work? Nope, they can quit and have no money. Next please.
Now, instead of hovering over an argument I've already completely destroyed, please move on to the more recent arguments which continue to thrash your theories. Even by dictionary definition you prove yourself wrong.
[QUOTE user=ScobieCommie] Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
The only way this is any way ethical is maybe trade apprenticeships or if there's people who simply refuse to work but are entitled to dole.
There's a scheme here for long term unemployed where you go to the state agency responsible and once you're approved for the scheme, you work 3 days a week and depending on the scheme in your area, you could be painting a school, receptionist at a museum or working in an old folks home etc. You only get about 50 quid extra, which is all covered by the state. You don't work for business, you work for your local community gaining actual experience, usually doing something you enjoy. I have no problem with that, and the schemes are oversubscribed everywhere. You can dress it up all you want, but once you've stacked one shelf, if you don't get the hang of it maybe you shouldn't be on the dole, you should be in an assisted living facility.
As an aside, dole isn't a living wage, it's to let you scrape along the bottom until you find work. Add up how much money you spend just so you can get to and from work, then subtract it from how much money you get on the dole. I'm thinking that after 10 weeks you'd be well in debt. I remember doing some bs course after college, I got a grant of around 100 quid a week, but the bus fare to and from the course was 20 quid alone, add rent and bills and I was fucked. Cheesy beans on toast is nice and alll, but after a few months it takes its toll.
Trickle up economics ftw.
[/QUOTE]
Has it not been made clear that these businesses are getting these workers because no one is fucking applying, ie. THEY CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AND FIND WORKERS.
God you are so dense.
You're trying to swing this like companies are just looking to a labour pool for workers when someone gets fired or quit. A company woudl be fucking STUPID to not advertise for a position and keep output nominal rather than wait for a government labour pool to show up and save the day. Why would they pass up paid workers that are motivated to keep their jobs, and instead take free labour from unemployment that don't care about shit? Does that even make sense to you? A business' last resort would be to take free work from unemployment if they care at all about efficiency or output.
This whole argument was on the basis that a company has exhausted it's means of finding workers to fill the positions, and the government steps in and says "Hey, we see you're not filling your positions, would you like some volunteers?", and, again, if these people don't want to go to work for their unemployment, they lose their fucking money.
Scobiewan wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
Inane Friedman bullshit
I know English isn't your first language, so I'm happy to help.
slavery[ˈsleɪvərɪ]
n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4.(Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay
Please "Keep your palm on your face for yourself".
Actually, i'll keep my palm on YOUR face.
"work done in harsh conditions for low pay "
Please name these so-called harsh conditions and slightly higher than minimum wage earnings, when these people have had nothing taken from them (in fact, they have a few MORE rights given to them than the average joe), and only opportunity given. Harsh Conditions, nope. Low Pay, nope. Forced into work? Nope, they can quit and have no money. Next please.
Now, instead of hovering over an argument I've already completely destroyed, please move on to the more recent arguments which continue to thrash your theories. Even by dictionary definition you prove yourself wrong.
ScobieCommie wrote:
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
The only way this is any way ethical is maybe trade apprenticeships or if there's people who simply refuse to work but are entitled to dole.
There's a scheme here for long term unemployed where you go to the state agency responsible and once you're approved for the scheme, you work 3 days a week and depending on the scheme in your area, you could be painting a school, receptionist at a museum or working in an old folks home etc. You only get about 50 quid extra, which is all covered by the state. You don't work for business, you work for your local community gaining actual experience, usually doing something you enjoy. I have no problem with that, and the schemes are oversubscribed everywhere. You can dress it up all you want, but once you've stacked one shelf, if you don't get the hang of it maybe you shouldn't be on the dole, you should be in an assisted living facility.
As an aside, dole isn't a living wage, it's to let you scrape along the bottom until you find work. Add up how much money you spend just so you can get to and from work, then subtract it from how much money you get on the dole. I'm thinking that after 10 weeks you'd be well in debt. I remember doing some bs course after college, I got a grant of around 100 quid a week, but the bus fare to and from the course was 20 quid alone, add rent and bills and I was fucked. Cheesy beans on toast is nice and alll, but after a few months it takes its toll.
Trickle up economics ftw.
Has it not been made clear that these businesses are getting these workers because no one is fucking applying, ie. THEY CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AND FIND WORKERS.
God you are so dense.
You're trying to swing this like companies are just looking to a labour pool for workers when someone gets fired or quit. A company woudl be fucking STUPID to not advertise for a position and keep output nominal rather than wait for a government labour pool to show up and save the day. Why would they pass up paid workers that are motivated to keep their jobs, and instead take free labour from unemployment that don't care about shit? Does that even make sense to you? A business' last resort would be to take free work from unemployment if they care at all about efficiency or output.
This whole argument was on the basis that a company has exhausted it's means of finding workers to fill the positions, and the government steps in and says "Hey, we see you're not filling your positions, would you like some volunteers?", and, again, if these people don't want to go to work for their unemployment, they lose their fucking money.
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
[/quote]
This'll be easy. Where did I say people have a right to work where they want? I'm sure I'd remember it. You're confusing what you think I said with what I actually said.
This kind of thinking is a result of years of worker's right erosion. There was a time where you had a thing called a "level entry job". That's what you got when you left school, or while you were still in school for the more industrious of us. You also had more job security back then, but that's another issue. These jobs were acquired by going to what's still called an "interview". It was the way in which you selected the best candidates and chose the one most suited to your needs. These jobs were usually menial, unskilled jobs because you wouldn't be hiring people without experience to do skilled work. You may want to have 10 weeks of labour out of some kid at no cost to yourself, but that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make the tested interview process invalid. When I worked for Bass, I interviewed people every single Wednesday and called the successful applicants on Thursday morning. Granted, some were fired by Friday, but them's the breaks. If you can't handle that, there's courses you can take that will improve your human resource management skills. If you find you can't hold onto good staff, you're doing something wrong. If you expect the taxpayers to pay your wage bill, you shouldn't be in business.
proofinlife wrote:
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
This'll be easy. Where did I say people have a right to work where they want? I'm sure I'd remember it. You're confusing what you think I said with what I actually said.
This kind of thinking is a result of years of worker's right erosion. There was a time where you had a thing called a "level entry job". That's what you got when you left school, or while you were still in school for the more industrious of us. You also had more job security back then, but that's another issue. These jobs were acquired by going to what's still called an "interview". It was the way in which you selected the best candidates and chose the one most suited to your needs. These jobs were usually menial, unskilled jobs because you wouldn't be hiring people without experience to do skilled work. You may want to have 10 weeks of labour out of some kid at no cost to yourself, but that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make the tested interview process invalid. When I worked for Bass, I interviewed people every single Wednesday and called the successful applicants on Thursday morning. Granted, some were fired by Friday, but them's the breaks. If you can't handle that, there's courses you can take that will improve your human resource management skills. If you find you can't hold onto good staff, you're doing something wrong. If you expect the taxpayers to pay your wage bill, you shouldn't be in business.
[quote user=proofinlife] Has it not been made clear that these businesses are getting these workers because no one is fucking applying, ie. THEY CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AND FIND WORKERS.
[/quote]
Where? Where has this happened? Show me proof
proofinlife wrote:
Has it not been made clear that these businesses are getting these workers because no one is fucking applying, ie. THEY CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AND FIND WORKERS.
[quote user=Scobiewan] [quote user=proofinlife]According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
[/quote]
This'll be easy. Where did I say people have a right to work where they want? I'm sure I'd remember it. You're confusing what you think I said with what I actually said.
This kind of thinking is a result of years of worker's right erosion. There was a time where you had a thing called a "level entry job". That's what you got when you left school, or while you were still in school for the more industrious of us. You also had more job security back then, but that's another issue. These jobs were acquired by going to what's still called an "interview". It was the way in which you selected the best candidates and chose the one most suited to your needs. These jobs were usually menial, unskilled jobs because you wouldn't be hiring people without experience to do skilled work. You may want to have 10 weeks of labour out of some kid at no cost to yourself, but that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make the tested interview process invalid. When I worked for Bass, I interviewed people every single Wednesday and called the successful applicants on Thursday morning. Granted, some were fired by Friday, but them's the breaks. If you can't handle that, there's courses you can take that will improve your human resource management skills. If you find you can't hold onto good staff, you're doing something wrong. If you expect the taxpayers to pay your wage bill, you shouldn't be in business. [/quote]
Thank you for proving every single thing I just posted before you.
This proves that your argument is based on assumptions that employers never put out employment ads or took resumes, or hired potential candidates and fired them the following friday BEFORE they took these steps.
Your whole assumption is that a business loses a worker and goes to big govamint, which is a completely wrong assumption.
These services are available to get people back to work and employed and keep businesses operating, not to simply provide free labour that a business can abuse.
If you didn't know how your country works with employment, businesses get huge tax rebates and incentives to keep people employed and keep employing more people. It would just be completely stupid for a "labour pool" to be used anytime a position opens.
And on that point, do you think a company that willingly uses government labour as a free abusable service would have a very good public image during a recession?
These services are provided to businesses that need and cannot find the workers through their own means. That is all.
Scobiewan wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
This'll be easy. Where did I say people have a right to work where they want? I'm sure I'd remember it. You're confusing what you think I said with what I actually said.
This kind of thinking is a result of years of worker's right erosion. There was a time where you had a thing called a "level entry job". That's what you got when you left school, or while you were still in school for the more industrious of us. You also had more job security back then, but that's another issue. These jobs were acquired by going to what's still called an "interview". It was the way in which you selected the best candidates and chose the one most suited to your needs. These jobs were usually menial, unskilled jobs because you wouldn't be hiring people without experience to do skilled work. You may want to have 10 weeks of labour out of some kid at no cost to yourself, but that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make the tested interview process invalid. When I worked for Bass, I interviewed people every single Wednesday and called the successful applicants on Thursday morning. Granted, some were fired by Friday, but them's the breaks. If you can't handle that, there's courses you can take that will improve your human resource management skills. If you find you can't hold onto good staff, you're doing something wrong. If you expect the taxpayers to pay your wage bill, you shouldn't be in business.
Thank you for proving every single thing I just posted before you.
This proves that your argument is based on assumptions that employers never put out employment ads or took resumes, or hired potential candidates and fired them the following friday BEFORE they took these steps.
Your whole assumption is that a business loses a worker and goes to big govamint, which is a completely wrong assumption.
These services are available to get people back to work and employed and keep businesses operating, not to simply provide free labour that a business can abuse.
If you didn't know how your country works with employment, businesses get huge tax rebates and incentives to keep people employed and keep employing more people. It would just be completely stupid for a "labour pool" to be used anytime a position opens.
And on that point, do you think a company that willingly uses government labour as a free abusable service would have a very good public image during a recession?
These services are provided to businesses that need and cannot find the workers through their own means. That is all.
There's no unskilled labour shortage. None. Tescos has no problem employing people, in fact they've been putting people on 6 month contracts instead of 12 months so it's easier to let them go. Care to "destroy" that?
There's no unskilled labour shortage. None. Tescos has no problem employing people, in fact they've been putting people on 6 month contracts instead of 12 months so it's easier to let them go. Care to "destroy" that?
[quote user=Scobiewan] There's no unskilled labour shortage. None. Tescos has no problem employing people, in fact they've been putting people on 6 month contracts instead of 12 months so it's easier to let them go. Care to "destroy" that? [/quote]
Then can you care to explain why these companies don't have people employed during a recession where it is important to keep output balanced with sales as high as possible?
I'll slip into your line of thought for a second (and probably head over to the psychiatrist immediately afterwards). A recession hits, a company loses income. A company lets go of workers to make up for fallen sales/income. Naturally, with a reduced worker load, output is decreased to match the workforce. In this scenario, the business doens't want to pay workers but keep output nominal. They go to the government and tell them they need workers. Now, they laid off their workforce and reduced output, the government will see the actual need for workers and laugh in their faces, meanwhile, giving workers to businesses that actually need the use of provided labour to stay afloat.
If the business needs workers and can afford it (meaning, they CAN afford nominal output) then the same business can afford paid workers and the government will put the resources in places that actually need it, not in the business, and their request will be denied.
If a business needs workers to simply stay functional, and they've put out ads and looked for workers but received nothing, it is definitely in the government's best interest to keep a business alive to ensure employment to as many people as possible.
Again, your assuming companies are just going to a labour pool because they are too lazy to advertise for employment (and we've already been over the points of an employed workforce that has to fight for a job against a provided workforce that gets the money regardless how hard they work). Your assumption is wildly wrong.
Scobiewan wrote:
There's no unskilled labour shortage. None. Tescos has no problem employing people, in fact they've been putting people on 6 month contracts instead of 12 months so it's easier to let them go. Care to "destroy" that?
Then can you care to explain why these companies don't have people employed during a recession where it is important to keep output balanced with sales as high as possible?
I'll slip into your line of thought for a second (and probably head over to the psychiatrist immediately afterwards). A recession hits, a company loses income. A company lets go of workers to make up for fallen sales/income. Naturally, with a reduced worker load, output is decreased to match the workforce. In this scenario, the business doens't want to pay workers but keep output nominal. They go to the government and tell them they need workers. Now, they laid off their workforce and reduced output, the government will see the actual need for workers and laugh in their faces, meanwhile, giving workers to businesses that actually need the use of provided labour to stay afloat.
If the business needs workers and can afford it (meaning, they CAN afford nominal output) then the same business can afford paid workers and the government will put the resources in places that actually need it, not in the business, and their request will be denied.
If a business needs workers to simply stay functional, and they've put out ads and looked for workers but received nothing, it is definitely in the government's best interest to keep a business alive to ensure employment to as many people as possible.
Again, your assuming companies are just going to a labour pool because they are too lazy to advertise for employment (and we've already been over the points of an employed workforce that has to fight for a job against a provided workforce that gets the money regardless how hard they work). Your assumption is wildly wrong.
ILO Unemployed: 2.622 mn (2.566 mn) Inactive - wants a job: 2.255 mn (2.288 mn) Total wanting work (4.877 mn) (4.854 mn)
Vacancies 0.464 mn (0.464 mn) (revised)
People per vacancy 10.51 (10.46)
[/quote]
How much do you want to bet that most of that 4.8m are all people with pre-grad education, shotty work record, and/or criminal records that no company would even want to risk taking on? How many of these are people saying they want jobs who have comfortably sat on their ass all their lives and never worked? How many of these people are just straight up lying? How many are with drug problems that could not function in a working environment? How many of these are people involved in gangs or crimes that they cannot leave or will not leave? How many of these are homeless people that simply can't get a job because they have no worth to even gas pumping businesses? There are over 200,000 (300,000 total, the other 100k being people with jobs with no home) people in Britain alone that are homeless and unwilling to recieve jobs (or can't, because, they're, well.... homeless and most likely impaired physically or mentally).
Yeah, i'd be willing to bet the actual amount of hirable candidates in that whole group is less than the amount of available jobs. A company is not forced to hire someone if they are a detriment rather than an asset coming in.
Scobiewan wrote:
This is from the Brit ONS:
September 2011
ILO Unemployed: 2.622 mn (2.566 mn) Inactive - wants a job: 2.255 mn (2.288 mn) Total wanting work (4.877 mn) (4.854 mn)
Vacancies 0.464 mn (0.464 mn) (revised)
People per vacancy 10.51 (10.46)
How much do you want to bet that most of that 4.8m are all people with pre-grad education, shotty work record, and/or criminal records that no company would even want to risk taking on? How many of these are people saying they want jobs who have comfortably sat on their ass all their lives and never worked? How many of these people are just straight up lying? How many are with drug problems that could not function in a working environment? How many of these are people involved in gangs or crimes that they cannot leave or will not leave? How many of these are homeless people that simply can't get a job because they have no worth to even gas pumping businesses? There are over 200,000 (300,000 total, the other 100k being people with jobs with no home) people in Britain alone that are homeless and unwilling to recieve jobs (or can't, because, they're, well.... homeless and most likely impaired physically or mentally).
Yeah, i'd be willing to bet the actual amount of hirable candidates in that whole group is less than the amount of available jobs. A company is not forced to hire someone if they are a detriment rather than an asset coming in.
You're talking about stacking shelves at tescos like it's rocket science, or that people don't want to have a job. There's nothing to suggest that there's a shortage of able people for unskilled labour, or that these jobs are hard to fill, I'm still waiting for you to show me your proof that they are. I've seen the people that work at tescos, they aren't rocket scientists, but a tescos job is way better than no job, which is why you can tell when a retailer is hiring by the hundreds in line outside waiting for interviews.
The only shortage of labour is in specialised/skilled areas, which is well documented. The government would be far smarter to train people for those jobs, instead they've made it harder to go to college.
You're talking about stacking shelves at tescos like it's rocket science, or that people don't want to have a job. There's nothing to suggest that there's a shortage of able people for unskilled labour, or that these jobs are hard to fill, I'm still waiting for you to show me your proof that they are. I've seen the people that work at tescos, they aren't rocket scientists, but a tescos job is way better than no job, which is why you can tell when a retailer is hiring by the hundreds in line outside waiting for interviews.
The only shortage of labour is in specialised/skilled areas, which is well documented. The government would be far smarter to train people for those jobs, instead they've made it harder to go to college.
[quote user=Scobiewan] You're talking about stacking shelves at tescos like it's rocket science, or that people don't want to have a job. There's nothing to suggest that there's a shortage of able people for unskilled labour, or that these jobs are hard to fill, I'm still waiting for you to show me your proof that they are. I've seen the people that work at tescos, they aren't rocket scientists, but a tescos job is way better than no job, which is why you can tell when a retailer is hiring by the hundreds in line outside waiting for interviews.
The only shortage of labour is in specialised/skilled areas, which is well documented. The government would be far smarter to train people for those jobs, instead they've made it harder to go to college. [/quote]
Unless you can prove to me that there is undeniably more jobs available than people looking for them, ie. numbers, then we're at a stalemate. A quote from ONS of all places, without a breakdown of each individual and whether they were flat out lying would be incredibly useful to your argument. But there isn't one, so you can't argue shit on that point. I can argue human laziness, honesty, and motivation, to that, there is no numbers or statistics necessary. I can argue that your country is so full of lazy bastards that the government has to step in and fill employment coffers just to keep shit running, you can't argue anything on the contrary.
Also, I'd like you to prove to me that every single person on that list is actually looking for work and not just saying it to sound nice.
I'd also like you to prove to me that these 4.8m are on the street pounding pavement every day looking for jobs.
They aren't, and you can't prove that they are.
Your whole argument is based on "what if's", mine is based on "what is".
Argument is over.
Scobiewan wrote:
You're talking about stacking shelves at tescos like it's rocket science, or that people don't want to have a job. There's nothing to suggest that there's a shortage of able people for unskilled labour, or that these jobs are hard to fill, I'm still waiting for you to show me your proof that they are. I've seen the people that work at tescos, they aren't rocket scientists, but a tescos job is way better than no job, which is why you can tell when a retailer is hiring by the hundreds in line outside waiting for interviews.
The only shortage of labour is in specialised/skilled areas, which is well documented. The government would be far smarter to train people for those jobs, instead they've made it harder to go to college.
Unless you can prove to me that there is undeniably more jobs available than people looking for them, ie. numbers, then we're at a stalemate. A quote from ONS of all places, without a breakdown of each individual and whether they were flat out lying would be incredibly useful to your argument. But there isn't one, so you can't argue shit on that point. I can argue human laziness, honesty, and motivation, to that, there is no numbers or statistics necessary. I can argue that your country is so full of lazy bastards that the government has to step in and fill employment coffers just to keep shit running, you can't argue anything on the contrary.
Also, I'd like you to prove to me that every single person on that list is actually looking for work and not just saying it to sound nice.
I'd also like you to prove to me that these 4.8m are on the street pounding pavement every day looking for jobs.
They aren't, and you can't prove that they are.
Your whole argument is based on "what if's", mine is based on "what is".
^ i think yours is based on fuck all. there's more people out of work than jobs. now add slave labour into the mix, and aint none of them unemployed folk ever gone get a paying job.
^ i think yours is based on fuck all. there's more people out of work than jobs. now add slave labour into the mix, and aint none of them unemployed folk ever gone get a paying job.
[quote user=n0body] ^ i think yours is based on fuck all. there's more people out of work than jobs. now add slave labour into the mix, and aint none of them unemployed folk ever gone get a paying job. [/quote]
So, please Mr. big, explain to all of TAN how these people are going about finding jobs or creating them? that's right, absolutely nothing. They are just complaining that they don't have jobs, meanwhile no one is looking for jobs and the governmnet has to step in and keep shit running. If people were actually interested, they would be employed.
It's not slave labour big, I already crushed Scobie's argument on that one. They are getting paid and they have just as many rights, if not more, than the employed workers. They are doing it to keep getting their benefits while they "look for jobs". These people who are in these labour pools... yeah they're the actual ones out looking for ways to get employed and not pissing and moaning about being unemployed and slave camps taking their opportunities away
If these people were actually interested in working, these jobs would be filled and the government wouldn't have had to step in for anything.
For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice.
n0body wrote:
^ i think yours is based on fuck all. there's more people out of work than jobs. now add slave labour into the mix, and aint none of them unemployed folk ever gone get a paying job.
So, please Mr. big, explain to all of TAN how these people are going about finding jobs or creating them? that's right, absolutely nothing. They are just complaining that they don't have jobs, meanwhile no one is looking for jobs and the governmnet has to step in and keep shit running. If people were actually interested, they would be employed.
It's not slave labour big, I already crushed Scobie's argument on that one. They are getting paid and they have just as many rights, if not more, than the employed workers. They are doing it to keep getting their benefits while they "look for jobs". These people who are in these labour pools... yeah they're the actual ones out looking for ways to get employed and not pissing and moaning about being unemployed and slave camps taking their opportunities away
If these people were actually interested in working, these jobs would be filled and the government wouldn't have had to step in for anything.
For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice.
are you actually fucking telling me you think you should be able to force employees to work with no pay now...............your eurofag socialism has now gone WAY too far
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
are you actually fucking telling me you think you should be able to force employees to work with no pay now...............your eurofag socialism has now gone WAY too far
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
[quote user=mmateri] are you actually fucking telling me you think you should be able to force employees to work with no pay now...............your eurofag socialism has now gone WAY too far
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake [/quote]
They're already being paid through support you blind, fat, little girl. They ARE being paid for the work. Try reading.
It's almost like you're arguing what your country has been doing for over 50 years to keep employment and business up is wrong. This happens every day in the US, it's called Job Placement. Welfare and SSI use these systems. If you refuse the work, they cut you off. Big Surprise? Or is it just that you like free money and don't think you have to work to earn it?
mmateri wrote:
are you actually fucking telling me you think you should be able to force employees to work with no pay now...............your eurofag socialism has now gone WAY too far
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
They're already being paid through support you blind, fat, little girl. They ARE being paid for the work. Try reading.
It's almost like you're arguing what your country has been doing for over 50 years to keep employment and business up is wrong. This happens every day in the US, it's called Job Placement. Welfare and SSI use these systems. If you refuse the work, they cut you off. Big Surprise? Or is it just that you like free money and don't think you have to work to earn it?
nope, here you can't live on your benefits, if you have a job you should be able to atleast cover rent, then boil the broom for dinner, benefits won't even afford you the water to boil the broom in
nope, here you can't live on your benefits, if you have a job you should be able to atleast cover rent, then boil the broom for dinner, benefits won't even afford you the water to boil the broom in
hell, send some of them dumb fucks to alberta, we have a labour shortage, and i wouldn't mind having a green guy around to wash the floorboards of my truck
hell, send some of them dumb fucks to alberta, we have a labour shortage, and i wouldn't mind having a green guy around to wash the floorboards of my truck
Er, you crushed nothing. You're an employer and you want people to work for you without you paying them, that's what you'd get out of it. No wonder you can't see how immoral it is. I'm still waiting for proof of all these jobs that can't be filled, it's not coming, is it? All you have is "I bet" and "I think". I give you hard figures and you told me that I can't win this argument without detailed work history of each of the 4 million plus unemployed. This is how dumb you are.
[quote user=mmateri]
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake [/quote]
This is a sad, sad day. Mmat just pwnt you too, btw.
Er, you crushed nothing. You're an employer and you want people to work for you without you paying them, that's what you'd get out of it. No wonder you can't see how immoral it is. I'm still waiting for proof of all these jobs that can't be filled, it's not coming, is it? All you have is "I bet" and "I think". I give you hard figures and you told me that I can't win this argument without detailed work history of each of the 4 million plus unemployed. This is how dumb you are.
mmateri wrote:
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
This is a sad, sad day. Mmat just pwnt you too, btw.
[quote user=mmateri] nope, here you can't live on your benefits, if you have a job you should be able to atleast cover rent, then boil the broom for dinner, benefits won't even afford you the water to boil the broom in [/quote]
That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system and make the money they need to, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?
If you bothered to read, all of these people who are in these employment programs, are getting the opportunity to find work. They have a reason to be there. Everyone else is just crying that they don't have a job, meanwhile, they are doing nothing about it. I would rather the opportunity be given to someone who is actually looking for employment. Just like in the US, there are plenty of jobs available (and I'd like anyone to prove me otherwise, through a statistical breakdown, which they can't), the problem is there are too many fat lazy bastards that want to sit on their asses writing diatribes of government employment conspiracy all day rather than going out and finding a job. They dont' want to work.
When there is a lack of people actually wanting to work, and companies are looking for workers, what exactly do you think needs to be done?
mmateri wrote:
nope, here you can't live on your benefits, if you have a job you should be able to atleast cover rent, then boil the broom for dinner, benefits won't even afford you the water to boil the broom in
That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system and make the money they need to, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?
If you bothered to read, all of these people who are in these employment programs, are getting the opportunity to find work. They have a reason to be there. Everyone else is just crying that they don't have a job, meanwhile, they are doing nothing about it. I would rather the opportunity be given to someone who is actually looking for employment. Just like in the US, there are plenty of jobs available (and I'd like anyone to prove me otherwise, through a statistical breakdown, which they can't), the problem is there are too many fat lazy bastards that want to sit on their asses writing diatribes of government employment conspiracy all day rather than going out and finding a job. They dont' want to work.
When there is a lack of people actually wanting to work, and companies are looking for workers, what exactly do you think needs to be done?
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=n0body]^ i think yours is based on fuck all. there's more people out of work than jobs. now add slave labour into the mix, and aint none of them unemployed folk ever gone get a paying job.[/quote]
So, please Mr. big, explain to all of TAN how these people are going about finding jobs or creating them? that's right, absolutely nothing. They are just complaining that they don't have jobs, meanwhile no one is looking for jobs and the governmnet has to step in and keep shit running. If people were actually interested, they would be employed. For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice. [/quote]
point is, aint no jobs. can't get a job if aint no job.
proofinlife wrote:
n0body wrote:
^ i think yours is based on fuck all. there's more people out of work than jobs. now add slave labour into the mix, and aint none of them unemployed folk ever gone get a paying job.
So, please Mr. big, explain to all of TAN how these people are going about finding jobs or creating them? that's right, absolutely nothing. They are just complaining that they don't have jobs, meanwhile no one is looking for jobs and the governmnet has to step in and keep shit running. If people were actually interested, they would be employed. For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice.
point is, aint no jobs. can't get a job if aint no job.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=mmateri]nope, here you can't live on your benefits, if you have a job you should be able to atleast cover rent, then boil the broom for dinner, benefits won't even afford you the water to boil the broom in[/quote]
That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve? [/quote]
i think i explained that with benefit money you starve anyways, i had a friend on welfare and he got 510/month, good luck finding a one bedroom apt for under 700
proofinlife wrote:
mmateri wrote:
nope, here you can't live on your benefits, if you have a job you should be able to atleast cover rent, then boil the broom for dinner, benefits won't even afford you the water to boil the broom in
That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?
i think i explained that with benefit money you starve anyways, i had a friend on welfare and he got 510/month, good luck finding a one bedroom apt for under 700
[quote user=n0body] [quote user=proofinlife]For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice.[/quote]
point is, aint no jobs. can't get a job if aint no job. [/quote]
Prove that to me. You sound like another whiney little bitch that doesn't want a low paying job because that's all that is available. Sorry, no empathy for you.
[quote user=mmateri] [quote user=proofinlife]That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?[/quote]
i think i explained that with benefit money you starve anyways, i had a friend on welfare and he got 510/month, good luck finding a one bedroom apt for under 700 [/quote]
There is a thing called room mates, bunking, whatever you want to call it. If you're living off benefits by yourself you're either a fucking genius with a secret to lavish welfare living or you're completely fucking stupid. Also, your friend on benefits should try shopping in apartments that actually cater to assisted living people, not employed people with money. So don't tell me it can't be survived, because it fucking can. If he has to ring out an existence in a cockroach infested apartment that is no bigger than my fucking bathroom, then that's what's got to be done. No use in bitching that the govmints takin' yer jerbs and that's why you're on welfare. Get your shit together and either find a job or make one. Make one if you can't find one. If you can't make one, you're fucking USELESS.
510 a month is more than a lot of part time workers get, they manage just fine. Don't forget that.
n0body wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice.
point is, aint no jobs. can't get a job if aint no job.
Prove that to me. You sound like another whiney little bitch that doesn't want a low paying job because that's all that is available. Sorry, no empathy for you.
mmateri wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?
i think i explained that with benefit money you starve anyways, i had a friend on welfare and he got 510/month, good luck finding a one bedroom apt for under 700
There is a thing called room mates, bunking, whatever you want to call it. If you're living off benefits by yourself you're either a fucking genius with a secret to lavish welfare living or you're completely fucking stupid. Also, your friend on benefits should try shopping in apartments that actually cater to assisted living people, not employed people with money. So don't tell me it can't be survived, because it fucking can. If he has to ring out an existence in a cockroach infested apartment that is no bigger than my fucking bathroom, then that's what's got to be done. No use in bitching that the govmints takin' yer jerbs and that's why you're on welfare. Get your shit together and either find a job or make one. Make one if you can't find one. If you can't make one, you're fucking USELESS.
510 a month is more than a lot of part time workers get, they manage just fine. Don't forget that.
So, where's the figures? All those vacancies for unskilled work, where are they?
I think what you've fallen for is what I call "the window cleaner effect". People who start a company, say a window cleaning company, that's any way successful think that everyone can do it. They're right, up to the point where everyone is a window cleaner. Does a window cleaner get a window cleaner to clean his windows? Probably not. Is there a market in the UK for almost five million? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt you could set up any kind of business on 53 quid a week.
Another fallacy you have is this is a choice. You're not forced to do this work if you don't want to, true. But what are the options really? You keep your 53 quid and work 30 hours a week for no money, or you don't do the work and live on 0 quid. No food. No home. No bills. It's not really a choice, is it? You have to eat or else you die. If anything, these people have already proved they're looking for work because they went to the open day looking for gainful employment.
You think you're right, noproof, I get it. Keep talking though, it's funny.
Still waiting...
So, where's the figures? All those vacancies for unskilled work, where are they?
I think what you've fallen for is what I call "the window cleaner effect". People who start a company, say a window cleaning company, that's any way successful think that everyone can do it. They're right, up to the point where everyone is a window cleaner. Does a window cleaner get a window cleaner to clean his windows? Probably not. Is there a market in the UK for almost five million? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt you could set up any kind of business on 53 quid a week.
Another fallacy you have is this is a choice. You're not forced to do this work if you don't want to, true. But what are the options really? You keep your 53 quid and work 30 hours a week for no money, or you don't do the work and live on 0 quid. No food. No home. No bills. It's not really a choice, is it? You have to eat or else you die. If anything, these people have already proved they're looking for work because they went to the open day looking for gainful employment.
You think you're right, noproof, I get it. Keep talking though, it's funny.
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
[/quote]
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Why would any company employ people who simply cant/wont do the job , it doesnt matter if they make a million pound profit or a billiion, why should any company pay for staff that cant do the job.? These kids are given a chance at a job , if the store is unable to offer a job at the end of it . in the 3 stores I have been in, they keep contact details of those they would like to , in the event something comes up ..for example , xmas temps.
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
Scobiewan wrote:
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Why would any company employ people who simply cant/wont do the job , it doesnt matter if they make a million pound profit or a billiion, why should any company pay for staff that cant do the job.? These kids are given a chance at a job , if the store is unable to offer a job at the end of it . in the 3 stores I have been in, they keep contact details of those they would like to , in the event something comes up ..for example , xmas temps.
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
As if hundreds of thousands of young people don't already have problems with unpaid internships where employers keep them working for free by dangling the promise of incredibly elusive permanent paid positions.
As if hundreds of thousands of young people don't already have problems with unpaid internships where employers keep them working for free by dangling the promise of incredibly elusive permanent paid positions.
Another fallacy you have is this is a choice. You're not forced to do this work if you don't want to, true. But what are the options really? You keep your 53 quid and work 30 hours a week for no money, or you don't do the work and live on 0 quid. No food. No home. No bills. It's not really a choice, is it? You have to eat or else you die. If anything, these people have already proved they're looking for work because they went to the open day looking for gainful employment.
Still waiting... [/quote]
Yes, that is your only options. If you can't find work, make work. There are plenty of opportunities in this world outside Window Cleaning. ANYONE can start up a company from NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I did, and I'm making more than enough to survive. My business started after I quit HP and went on a depression binge for six months. I was literally 30 grand in debt and did not have a job (obviously). I started my business on April 14th, 09 and have never had a problem with money since, and am debt free. Anyone can do this, especially those lazy fucking yukkers.
Check your local bylaws on business zoning. Both Canada and Britain are identical in these laws in that ANYBODY can make under 30,000 dollars tax free without a business license or tax number. You can go out and start a fucking shit licking company, if it makes money, you have money. 30,000 dollars a year is more than enough for anyone to live on.
After they make 30,000 dollars, the 40 dollar business license is easily attainable, and at this point, they have the ability to expand and create more profit with a bonafide business that can be advertised and marketted. If you are in the right type of business, you could bid on contracts with huge businesses to ensure income, and if you want to ensure contracts, you can post ridiculously lower prices than everyone else, ensure work, but get less pay. That's the beauty of the market.
If you can't make money off your own private dealings and your own skills, you are as useless to society as a crack head on the street, and truly deserve to starve.
All of these people have the ability to produce services that make money, but they choose to sit around and bitch that there aren't any jobs.
Thumbs up to big for going to australia to find work, but he could've used his entrepeneurial skillset to create his own business instead of leaving the country (no dig at bigs, lol). He didn't have to be a window washer, he coudl've shovelled shit and made a decent living. Off topic, but I do find it ironic that big is callign this slavery when he left his country for a job that epitomized slavery for nearly a century...lol
Scobiewan wrote:
Another fallacy you have is this is a choice. You're not forced to do this work if you don't want to, true. But what are the options really? You keep your 53 quid and work 30 hours a week for no money, or you don't do the work and live on 0 quid. No food. No home. No bills. It's not really a choice, is it? You have to eat or else you die. If anything, these people have already proved they're looking for work because they went to the open day looking for gainful employment.
Still waiting...
Yes, that is your only options. If you can't find work, make work. There are plenty of opportunities in this world outside Window Cleaning. ANYONE can start up a company from NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I did, and I'm making more than enough to survive. My business started after I quit HP and went on a depression binge for six months. I was literally 30 grand in debt and did not have a job (obviously). I started my business on April 14th, 09 and have never had a problem with money since, and am debt free. Anyone can do this, especially those lazy fucking yukkers.
Check your local bylaws on business zoning. Both Canada and Britain are identical in these laws in that ANYBODY can make under 30,000 dollars tax free without a business license or tax number. You can go out and start a fucking shit licking company, if it makes money, you have money. 30,000 dollars a year is more than enough for anyone to live on.
After they make 30,000 dollars, the 40 dollar business license is easily attainable, and at this point, they have the ability to expand and create more profit with a bonafide business that can be advertised and marketted. If you are in the right type of business, you could bid on contracts with huge businesses to ensure income, and if you want to ensure contracts, you can post ridiculously lower prices than everyone else, ensure work, but get less pay. That's the beauty of the market.
If you can't make money off your own private dealings and your own skills, you are as useless to society as a crack head on the street, and truly deserve to starve.
All of these people have the ability to produce services that make money, but they choose to sit around and bitch that there aren't any jobs.
Thumbs up to big for going to australia to find work, but he could've used his entrepeneurial skillset to create his own business instead of leaving the country (no dig at bigs, lol). He didn't have to be a window washer, he coudl've shovelled shit and made a decent living. Off topic, but I do find it ironic that big is callign this slavery when he left his country for a job that epitomized slavery for nearly a century...lol
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] As if hundreds of thousands of young people don't already have problems with unpaid internships where employers keep them working for free by dangling the promise of incredibly elusive permanent paid positions. [/quote]
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
As if hundreds of thousands of young people don't already have problems with unpaid internships where employers keep them working for free by dangling the promise of incredibly elusive permanent paid positions.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
[quote user=Brig] I think it's clear that at this point Proof is very drunk and has tumbled down into "LALALALA, can't hear you LALALALA!!!" territory. [/quote]
I'm sorry, I don't use you or scobie's tactics. He pulled that card out early in the debate. About the point where I was proving that these functions and services are actually improving employment figures and getting people working who actually care to work. But who cares about that, it's slavery, whether these people are doing it for their own good or not.
Once I made it clear that it wasn't slavery and was in fact getting these people higher chances of employment, and businesses a higher chance of competent hires, Scobie changed the argument to "but it's keeping all us unemployed fuckers out of jobs!!!". It seems no matter what point I'm rolling over, you guys just can't live with being proven wrong.
Brig wrote:
I think it's clear that at this point Proof is very drunk and has tumbled down into "LALALALA, can't hear you LALALALA!!!" territory.
I'm sorry, I don't use you or scobie's tactics. He pulled that card out early in the debate. About the point where I was proving that these functions and services are actually improving employment figures and getting people working who actually care to work. But who cares about that, it's slavery, whether these people are doing it for their own good or not.
Once I made it clear that it wasn't slavery and was in fact getting these people higher chances of employment, and businesses a higher chance of competent hires, Scobie changed the argument to "but it's keeping all us unemployed fuckers out of jobs!!!". It seems no matter what point I'm rolling over, you guys just can't live with being proven wrong.
The window cleaning was just an example. That you didn't understand it was to be expected. Congrats on starting a business in less financially troubled times though, with your experience(that not everyone has. If you could keep up, I wouldn't have to keep typing obvious shit in brackets for you). They say businesses borne of recessionary times has a higher chance of long term success, so at least there's that. You know where you can find this utopia of entrepreneurial spirit you love so much? That's right, the third world.
So you'd be quite happy for your competitors wage bill to be subsidised by the taxpayer?
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat" - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Great company you keep.
You're also wrong about setting up a business in the UK, btw. "
That's not a personal opinion, that's the government saying that. Though somehow you'll take that as you "crushing" me.
Still waiting for proof of all these empty vacancies, lenin
So you're not gonna provide anything? Thought so.
The window cleaning was just an example. That you didn't understand it was to be expected. Congrats on starting a business in less financially troubled times though, with your experience(that not everyone has. If you could keep up, I wouldn't have to keep typing obvious shit in brackets for you). They say businesses borne of recessionary times has a higher chance of long term success, so at least there's that. You know where you can find this utopia of entrepreneurial spirit you love so much? That's right, the third world.
So you'd be quite happy for your competitors wage bill to be subsidised by the taxpayer?
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat" - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Great company you keep.
You're also wrong about setting up a business in the UK, btw. "
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]As if hundreds of thousands of young people don't already have problems with unpaid internships where employers keep them working for free by dangling the promise of incredibly elusive permanent paid positions.[/quote]
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job. [/quote]
I wasn't directly addressing anything you wrote, just pointing out that there already exist legions of people out there working (paid in kind, paid with a stipend, paid in expenses, and unpaid) in the hope of getting a full-time job. And the evidence from the market suggests that a tiny minority end up with paid positions, while the companies which 'hire' these poor bastards know they have an ever-ready carousel of people willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing. What makes you think any company will hire people permanently AND pay them when they know they have a carousel of poor bastards ready and waiting care of the DWP?
proofinlife wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
As if hundreds of thousands of young people don't already have problems with unpaid internships where employers keep them working for free by dangling the promise of incredibly elusive permanent paid positions.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
I wasn't directly addressing anything you wrote, just pointing out that there already exist legions of people out there working (paid in kind, paid with a stipend, paid in expenses, and unpaid) in the hope of getting a full-time job. And the evidence from the market suggests that a tiny minority end up with paid positions, while the companies which 'hire' these poor bastards know they have an ever-ready carousel of people willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing. What makes you think any company will hire people permanently AND pay them when they know they have a carousel of poor bastards ready and waiting care of the DWP?
[quote user=Reddwarfnut] [quote user=Scobiewan]Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
[/quote]
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Why would any company employ people who simply cant/wont do the job , it doesnt matter if they make a million pound profit or a billiion, why should any company pay for staff that cant do the job.? These kids are given a chance at a job , if the store is unable to offer a job at the end of it . in the 3 stores I have been in, they keep contact details of those they would like to , in the event something comes up ..for example , xmas temps.
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
[/quote]
He also made it quite clear that because a business can afford to open more positions (who cares that they are pointless or won't serve a function another position already handles) they should make those positions available simply because people want jobs. I'm sorry, but in my business, I'm only going to open positions when they are absolutely necessary, if they aren't necessary, that's wasted money. The same mindset goes from my small business all the way up to a huge Fortune 500 traded company (if not MORE so with the huge company). Why should I employ someone when I don't need the extra workers? Why should I pay someone for work that my existing work force can already cover on their own? Why should I split my checkbook for someone simply because they want money?
With scobies dream, he'd be getting laid off at every job simply because they opened a position because they had money, then turned around come quarterly and said "Oh shit, why are these jobs here and what are they doing and how are they increasing my bottom line?". Businesses aren't in existence to serve the people, they exist to make money, the bottom line is, jobs without purpose or created simply for employment will get the cut to the throat every time, if they are ever made.
Reddwarfnut wrote:
Scobiewan wrote:
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Why would any company employ people who simply cant/wont do the job , it doesnt matter if they make a million pound profit or a billiion, why should any company pay for staff that cant do the job.? These kids are given a chance at a job , if the store is unable to offer a job at the end of it . in the 3 stores I have been in, they keep contact details of those they would like to , in the event something comes up ..for example , xmas temps.
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
He also made it quite clear that because a business can afford to open more positions (who cares that they are pointless or won't serve a function another position already handles) they should make those positions available simply because people want jobs. I'm sorry, but in my business, I'm only going to open positions when they are absolutely necessary, if they aren't necessary, that's wasted money. The same mindset goes from my small business all the way up to a huge Fortune 500 traded company (if not MORE so with the huge company). Why should I employ someone when I don't need the extra workers? Why should I pay someone for work that my existing work force can already cover on their own? Why should I split my checkbook for someone simply because they want money?
With scobies dream, he'd be getting laid off at every job simply because they opened a position because they had money, then turned around come quarterly and said "Oh shit, why are these jobs here and what are they doing and how are they increasing my bottom line?". Businesses aren't in existence to serve the people, they exist to make money, the bottom line is, jobs without purpose or created simply for employment will get the cut to the throat every time, if they are ever made.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=proofinlife], because they aren't being paid and want a job.[/quote]
I wasn't directly addressing anything you wrote, just pointing out that there already exist legions of people out there working (paid in kind, paid with a stipend, paid in expenses, and unpaid) in the hope of getting a full-time job. And the evidence from the market suggests that a tiny minority end up with paid positions, while the companies which 'hire' these poor bastards know they have an ever-ready carousel of people willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing. What makes you think any company will hire people permanently AND pay them when they know they have a carousel of poor bastards ready and waiting care of the DWP? [/quote]
Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
I wasn't directly addressing anything you wrote, just pointing out that there already exist legions of people out there working (paid in kind, paid with a stipend, paid in expenses, and unpaid) in the hope of getting a full-time job. And the evidence from the market suggests that a tiny minority end up with paid positions, while the companies which 'hire' these poor bastards know they have an ever-ready carousel of people willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing. What makes you think any company will hire people permanently AND pay them when they know they have a carousel of poor bastards ready and waiting care of the DWP?
Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol
[quote user=Reddwarfnut] I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for.
[/quote]
So you got an interview, and the company got a productive employee? Thank you for proving the normal procedure works.
[quote user=Reddwarfnut] and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans,
[/quote]
Well done, you made the effort, and proved my point. If they'd advertised for the job, they might have gotten a better calibre of applicant, which, again, is the accepted practice.
[quote user=Reddwarfnut] And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
[/quote]
He should be fired then. There's plenty of legislation in place to fire unproductive(and I'm guessing non-union) staff. Bad staff are a drain on any business. Wait, are you his boss? And you've let him do fuck all all day? Bad red. Also, you still owe us a vid of that welsh bird with the big tits.
Do you know what kind of profits your company posted this year?
Reddwarfnut wrote:
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for.
So you got an interview, and the company got a productive employee? Thank you for proving the normal procedure works.
Reddwarfnut wrote:
and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans,
Well done, you made the effort, and proved my point. If they'd advertised for the job, they might have gotten a better calibre of applicant, which, again, is the accepted practice.
Reddwarfnut wrote:
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
He should be fired then. There's plenty of legislation in place to fire unproductive(and I'm guessing non-union) staff. Bad staff are a drain on any business. Wait, are you his boss? And you've let him do fuck all all day? Bad red. Also, you still owe us a vid of that welsh bird with the big tits.
Do you know what kind of profits your company posted this year?
Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol [/quote]
Do you wanna take that one, DA?
proofinlife wrote:
Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol
[quote user=Scobiewan] [quote user=proofinlife]Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol[/quote]
Do you wanna take that one, DA? [/quote]
lol...
Scobiewan wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol
[quote user=Scobiewan] So you're not gonna provide anything? Thought so.
The window cleaning was just an example. That you didn't understand it was to be expected. Congrats on starting a business in less financially troubled times though, with your experience(that not everyone has. If you could keep up, I wouldn't have to keep typing obvious shit in brackets for you). They say businesses borne of recessionary times has a higher chance of long term success, so at least there's that. You know where you can find this utopia of entrepreneurial spirit you love so much? That's right, the third world.
So you'd be quite happy for your competitors wage bill to be subsidised by the taxpayer?
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat" - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Great company you keep.
You're also wrong about setting up a business in the UK, btw. "
That's not a personal opinion, that's the government saying that. Though somehow you'll take that as you "crushing" me.
Still waiting for proof of all these empty vacancies, lenin
[/quote]
Scobie, you missed my point in all of that. NOBODY HERE CAN PROVIDE NUMBERS YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Everything we're debating is based on assumption, and I am assuming that, like the rest of the human race, britains lie and try to make themselves seem better than they really are. Human fucking nature. I'm not arguing you over the vacancies bullshit, that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that employment systems are putting workers in place to ensure a skilled and motivated workforce to whoever hires them. Get off that topic already. You guys turned this into a silly debate about slavery and job availability when it was only ever about the employment system putting workers in place to keep the economy rolling.
And as Red pointed out, the point i was trying to nail into your thick skulls, employers are only going to hire the most skilled and competent workers that WANT WORK. They see the guys from the employment program working their asses off, because, you know, that's WHY THEY ARE THERE, and they'll see the lazy ass unemployed welfare cocksuckers waiting for a paycheck. Who do you think they're going to hire?
About your Quote above about taxes.
Talk to your local muncipality. That above quote was for the general public who are employed by an employer. Business' operate under a completely different set of rules. I don't know your muncipal zoning bylaws so I can't tell you what is what, I just assume that since Canada and Britain have pretty similar tax laws that Zoning and business laws would probably be the same. Who knows? Maybe they don't allow you guys to make 30,000 a year, if not, that truly does suck, but I would assume that government wants to give as much incentives to business as possible. That's what kept canada out of most of the damage the recession did. I do know that most of the problems in Britain stem from the Banks, just like in America, and not so much anything to do with private businesses (unless they were in mega debt).
Basically, i have to do two tax returns per year. One for myself based on what I paid myself, and one for my business based on total earnings before tax. My personal taxes would be like any other joe, based on how much I make, location, etc blah blah. Business is totally different, taxes are totally different, and what they consider "acceptable non-taxable income" is different. A general joe can be thrown in jail for working under the table as an unlicensed business (example : Joe's Grass Cutting, does not have business license). However, a licensed business has an acceptable margin of 30,000 dollars before they have to start reporting taxes and every penny of income to the government. But that's really nothing to do with any of that. the point I was trying to make was that anyone who want to, can start a business from scratch (literally). I did it by doing everything out of my house at first, then buying a cheap storefront in an old building, and here i am, good to go.
Scobiewan wrote:
So you're not gonna provide anything? Thought so.
The window cleaning was just an example. That you didn't understand it was to be expected. Congrats on starting a business in less financially troubled times though, with your experience(that not everyone has. If you could keep up, I wouldn't have to keep typing obvious shit in brackets for you). They say businesses borne of recessionary times has a higher chance of long term success, so at least there's that. You know where you can find this utopia of entrepreneurial spirit you love so much? That's right, the third world.
So you'd be quite happy for your competitors wage bill to be subsidised by the taxpayer?
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat" - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Great company you keep.
You're also wrong about setting up a business in the UK, btw. "
That's not a personal opinion, that's the government saying that. Though somehow you'll take that as you "crushing" me.
Still waiting for proof of all these empty vacancies, lenin
Scobie, you missed my point in all of that. NOBODY HERE CAN PROVIDE NUMBERS YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Everything we're debating is based on assumption, and I am assuming that, like the rest of the human race, britains lie and try to make themselves seem better than they really are. Human fucking nature. I'm not arguing you over the vacancies bullshit, that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that employment systems are putting workers in place to ensure a skilled and motivated workforce to whoever hires them. Get off that topic already. You guys turned this into a silly debate about slavery and job availability when it was only ever about the employment system putting workers in place to keep the economy rolling.
And as Red pointed out, the point i was trying to nail into your thick skulls, employers are only going to hire the most skilled and competent workers that WANT WORK. They see the guys from the employment program working their asses off, because, you know, that's WHY THEY ARE THERE, and they'll see the lazy ass unemployed welfare cocksuckers waiting for a paycheck. Who do you think they're going to hire?
About your Quote above about taxes.
Talk to your local muncipality. That above quote was for the general public who are employed by an employer. Business' operate under a completely different set of rules. I don't know your muncipal zoning bylaws so I can't tell you what is what, I just assume that since Canada and Britain have pretty similar tax laws that Zoning and business laws would probably be the same. Who knows? Maybe they don't allow you guys to make 30,000 a year, if not, that truly does suck, but I would assume that government wants to give as much incentives to business as possible. That's what kept canada out of most of the damage the recession did. I do know that most of the problems in Britain stem from the Banks, just like in America, and not so much anything to do with private businesses (unless they were in mega debt).
Basically, i have to do two tax returns per year. One for myself based on what I paid myself, and one for my business based on total earnings before tax. My personal taxes would be like any other joe, based on how much I make, location, etc blah blah. Business is totally different, taxes are totally different, and what they consider "acceptable non-taxable income" is different. A general joe can be thrown in jail for working under the table as an unlicensed business (example : Joe's Grass Cutting, does not have business license). However, a licensed business has an acceptable margin of 30,000 dollars before they have to start reporting taxes and every penny of income to the government. But that's really nothing to do with any of that. the point I was trying to make was that anyone who want to, can start a business from scratch (literally). I did it by doing everything out of my house at first, then buying a cheap storefront in an old building, and here i am, good to go.
[quote user=Scobiewan] [quote user=Reddwarfnut]I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for.
[/quote]
So you got an interview, and the company got a productive employee? Thank you for proving the normal procedure works.
[quote user=Reddwarfnut]and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans,
[/quote]
Well done, you made the effort, and proved my point. If they'd advertised for the job, they might have gotten a better calibre of applicant, which, again, is the accepted practice.
[quote user=Reddwarfnut]And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
[/quote]
He should be fired then. There's plenty of legislation in place to fire unproductive(and I'm guessing non-union) staff. Bad staff are a drain on any business. Wait, are you his boss? And you've let him do fuck all all day? Bad red. Also, you still owe us a vid of that welsh bird with the big tits.
Do you know what kind of profits your company posted this year? [/quote]
but scob had you noticed i did say about a friend who started on one of these services and is now in the short list for a assistant manager of a new store after proving himself. [quote user=Reddwarfnut]
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
[/quote]
Im a supervisor , so yeah , i am in charge of shop floor runnings/ staff allocations....i didnt let him do fuck all , i kicked his ass up and down the store, if im working my guts out , everyone around me has to work their guts out , no fucker slacks without me being a massive cunt about it. my point is that my mate started on teh same service that kid did , my mate is a supervisor and is in teh running for assistant manager. With some effort anyone can get off these services if they ahve proven themselves.
as for the vid , shits out on that one , if anything comes along that line ile let you know , also where the fuck have you been have not seen you around for an age , how sthe whole kid thing going for you ?
Scobiewan wrote:
Reddwarfnut wrote:
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for.
So you got an interview, and the company got a productive employee? Thank you for proving the normal procedure works.
Reddwarfnut wrote:
and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans,
Well done, you made the effort, and proved my point. If they'd advertised for the job, they might have gotten a better calibre of applicant, which, again, is the accepted practice.
Reddwarfnut wrote:
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
He should be fired then. There's plenty of legislation in place to fire unproductive(and I'm guessing non-union) staff. Bad staff are a drain on any business. Wait, are you his boss? And you've let him do fuck all all day? Bad red. Also, you still owe us a vid of that welsh bird with the big tits.
Do you know what kind of profits your company posted this year?
but scob had you noticed i did say about a friend who started on one of these services and is now in the short list for a assistant manager of a new store after proving himself.
Reddwarfnut wrote:
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Im a supervisor , so yeah , i am in charge of shop floor runnings/ staff allocations....i didnt let him do fuck all , i kicked his ass up and down the store, if im working my guts out , everyone around me has to work their guts out , no fucker slacks without me being a massive cunt about it. my point is that my mate started on teh same service that kid did , my mate is a supervisor and is in teh running for assistant manager. With some effort anyone can get off these services if they ahve proven themselves.
as for the vid , shits out on that one , if anything comes along that line ile let you know , also where the fuck have you been have not seen you around for an age , how sthe whole kid thing going for you ?
1. I provided figures from the ONS. These figures are good enough for the markets, for the policy makers, for the EU, for the ratings agencies. Still waiting for your figures though. 2. The point you're trying to make about skilled workers is a fallacy. These are jobs like shelf stacking for the multi-billion pound profit-making Tescos, BHS or poundland. Supposedly, they're for people to get experience, not to "keep the economy rolling". Why would Tesco need any state subsidy? They posted $5.97 billion in profit in April! If you were a small, independent retailer competing with a nearby Walmart, you'd be happy they didn't have to pay their staff, but you did? Are they a "lazy ass" corporation on work benefit? Can you honestly justify that? Would they not be better off picking up litter or painting hospitals? If they were properly monitored and had a full range of work training provided, maybe it'd be worth it. 2. The quote is for self-assessment. Self employed/sole traders are self-assessed. You assumed wrong. There is no municipality. The tax is set by the government and enforced by HMR&C, local business rates are set by local councils. Britain is not Canada. 3. Saying "lazy ass" all the time says more about you than anyone else. 4. I can do this shit all night.
1. I provided figures from the ONS. These figures are good enough for the markets, for the policy makers, for the EU, for the ratings agencies. Still waiting for your figures though. 2. The point you're trying to make about skilled workers is a fallacy. These are jobs like shelf stacking for the multi-billion pound profit-making Tescos, BHS or poundland. Supposedly, they're for people to get experience, not to "keep the economy rolling". Why would Tesco need any state subsidy? They posted $5.97 billion in profit in April! If you were a small, independent retailer competing with a nearby Walmart, you'd be happy they didn't have to pay their staff, but you did? Are they a "lazy ass" corporation on work benefit? Can you honestly justify that? Would they not be better off picking up litter or painting hospitals? If they were properly monitored and had a full range of work training provided, maybe it'd be worth it. 2. The quote is for self-assessment. Self employed/sole traders are self-assessed. You assumed wrong. There is no municipality. The tax is set by the government and enforced by HMR&C, local business rates are set by local councils. Britain is not Canada. 3. Saying "lazy ass" all the time says more about you than anyone else. 4. I can do this shit all night.
as for the vid , shits out on that one , if anything comes along that line ile let you know , also where the fuck have you been have not seen you around for an age , how sthe whole kid thing going for you ? [/quote]
His head is still massive, and he's a fucking bully, I reckon it's the welsh half. Fairly busy, man. No more all-nighters to talk shit with you lot, unfortunately, bills need paying. Stupid parental responsibilities.
Reddwarfnut wrote:
as for the vid , shits out on that one , if anything comes along that line ile let you know , also where the fuck have you been have not seen you around for an age , how sthe whole kid thing going for you ?
His head is still massive, and he's a fucking bully, I reckon it's the welsh half. Fairly busy, man. No more all-nighters to talk shit with you lot, unfortunately, bills need paying. Stupid parental responsibilities.
[quote user=Scobiewan] 1. I provided figures from the ONS. These figures are good enough for the markets, for the policy makers, for the EU, for the ratings agencies. Still waiting for your figures though. It's impossible to provide numbers, but if you're trying to say all 4.8m people are truly looking for work, you're kidding yourself. That's like saying there is no welfare system.
2. The point you're trying to make about skilled workers is a fallacy. These are jobs like shelf stacking for the multi-billion pound profit-making Tescos, BHS or poundland. Supposedly, they're for people to get experience, not to "keep the economy rolling". Why would Tesco need any state subsidy? They posted $5.97 billion in profit in April! If you were a small, independent retailer competing with a nearby Walmart, you'd be happy they didn't have to pay their staff, but you did? Are they a "lazy ass" corporation on work benefit? Can you honestly justify that? Would they not be better off picking up litter or painting hospitals? If they were properly monitored and had a full range of work training provided, maybe it'd be worth it.
This is why I made more of a point on motivated workers that actually want to work. Yes employers want skilled workers, but above all, they want them to do their fucking jobs. Everyone off the street is NOT a guaranteed good worker, where as someone from an employment program that you have had time to see in action, is pretty well guaranteed because you've seen it. It also shows that these people in these programs WANT work and want to do it for a long time, blah blah blah blah blah blah, I'm going to quit reciting the same things over and over again. You just don't get it.
2. The quote is for self-assessment. Self employed/sole traders are self-assessed. You assumed wrong. There is no municipality. The tax is set by the government and enforced by HMR&C, local business rates are set by local councils. Britain is not Canada.
Then your quote is wrong. Businesses are not taxed the way you or I are taxed. I was attempting to open neutral dialogue with you but if you want to continue with the childish aggressive attitude, alright.
3. Saying "lazy ass" all the time says more about you than anyone else.
Anyone who expects to be given a job simply because they want a job is a lazy fucking goof. If you disagree with that I need to push my palm further into your face. If people want a job, they're going to have to prove they deserve that job. That fits in well with the standard "market and apply" way of things. Actually it fits perfectly. People are complaining that these employment programs are getting opportunities over them... well, that's kind of what employment programs do. If they aren't in the program, they obviously don't want a job too fucking horribly quick.
4. I can do this shit all night.
As you can see, so can I. [/quote]
Scobiewan wrote:
1. I provided figures from the ONS. These figures are good enough for the markets, for the policy makers, for the EU, for the ratings agencies. Still waiting for your figures though. It's impossible to provide numbers, but if you're trying to say all 4.8m people are truly looking for work, you're kidding yourself. That's like saying there is no welfare system.
2. The point you're trying to make about skilled workers is a fallacy. These are jobs like shelf stacking for the multi-billion pound profit-making Tescos, BHS or poundland. Supposedly, they're for people to get experience, not to "keep the economy rolling". Why would Tesco need any state subsidy? They posted $5.97 billion in profit in April! If you were a small, independent retailer competing with a nearby Walmart, you'd be happy they didn't have to pay their staff, but you did? Are they a "lazy ass" corporation on work benefit? Can you honestly justify that? Would they not be better off picking up litter or painting hospitals? If they were properly monitored and had a full range of work training provided, maybe it'd be worth it.
This is why I made more of a point on motivated workers that actually want to work. Yes employers want skilled workers, but above all, they want them to do their fucking jobs. Everyone off the street is NOT a guaranteed good worker, where as someone from an employment program that you have had time to see in action, is pretty well guaranteed because you've seen it. It also shows that these people in these programs WANT work and want to do it for a long time, blah blah blah blah blah blah, I'm going to quit reciting the same things over and over again. You just don't get it.
2. The quote is for self-assessment. Self employed/sole traders are self-assessed. You assumed wrong. There is no municipality. The tax is set by the government and enforced by HMR&C, local business rates are set by local councils. Britain is not Canada.
Then your quote is wrong. Businesses are not taxed the way you or I are taxed. I was attempting to open neutral dialogue with you but if you want to continue with the childish aggressive attitude, alright.
3. Saying "lazy ass" all the time says more about you than anyone else.
Anyone who expects to be given a job simply because they want a job is a lazy fucking goof. If you disagree with that I need to push my palm further into your face. If people want a job, they're going to have to prove they deserve that job. That fits in well with the standard "market and apply" way of things. Actually it fits perfectly. People are complaining that these employment programs are getting opportunities over them... well, that's kind of what employment programs do. If they aren't in the program, they obviously don't want a job too fucking horribly quick.
[quote user=Scobiewan] ^Noproof is saying that there's loads of jobs but people won't go out and get them. [/quote]
Not sure about Britland, but there are in the States. Well.....some parts of the States. In the industry we are related to, people are STREAMING over to N. Dakota. In Washington they couldn't find people to pick the fucking apples......for 150 dollars A DAY! Lots of other "dirty" jobs also. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/25/10-Dirty-Jobs-That-Nobody-Wants.aspx#page1
There are jobs, but I think a lot of people think they are above it. They think they are better than the Mexican or Asian that normally does those jobs, apparently........
@Proofs
"There are plenty of opportunities in this world outside Window Cleaning."
Scobie said, " Does a window cleaner get a window cleaner to clean his windows? Probably not. Is there a market in the UK for almost five million? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt you could set up any kind of business on 53 quid a week."
Nothing wrong with window cleaning. That's what my cousin does in Portland Or. He made up some fliers and hit the streets........he is still doing it two years later. Obviously......there aren't that many people willing to clean windows. Makes some decent money working for himself.......under the table of course......
Anyway, this is not the Great Depression with almost a quarter of the population not working or able to find work.......there is work. It's just not "White People Work". Boo-hoo to the young white people........
Scobiewan wrote:
^Noproof is saying that there's loads of jobs but people won't go out and get them.
Not sure about Britland, but there are in the States. Well.....some parts of the States. In the industry we are related to, people are STREAMING over to N. Dakota. In Washington they couldn't find people to pick the fucking apples......for 150 dollars A DAY! Lots of other "dirty" jobs also. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/25/10-Dirty-Jobs-That-Nobody-Wants.aspx#page1
There are jobs, but I think a lot of people think they are above it. They think they are better than the Mexican or Asian that normally does those jobs, apparently........
@Proofs
"There are plenty of opportunities in this world outside Window Cleaning."
Scobie said, " Does a window cleaner get a window cleaner to clean his windows? Probably not. Is there a market in the UK for almost five million? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt you could set up any kind of business on 53 quid a week."
Nothing wrong with window cleaning. That's what my cousin does in Portland Or. He made up some fliers and hit the streets........he is still doing it two years later. Obviously......there aren't that many people willing to clean windows. Makes some decent money working for himself.......under the table of course......
Anyway, this is not the Great Depression with almost a quarter of the population not working or able to find work.......there is work. It's just not "White People Work". Boo-hoo to the young white people........
Since I haven't commented yet, how are you people to know what to think?
They are being paid. Their U.E. benefit payments are the 'wages' under this program. Work experience is of benefit to the unemployed as it does improve the chances of obtaining gainful employment. They are lucky, for the productivity of a new worker during training, usually does not equal the cost involved in the training.
That anyone is seriously whining about this, proves that 'socialism' has already fucked us beyond the point of societal suicide.
Since I haven't commented yet, how are you people to know what to think?
They are being paid. Their U.E. benefit payments are the 'wages' under this program. Work experience is of benefit to the unemployed as it does improve the chances of obtaining gainful employment. They are lucky, for the productivity of a new worker during training, usually does not equal the cost involved in the training.
That anyone is seriously whining about this, proves that 'socialism' has already fucked us beyond the point of societal suicide.
[quote user=n0body] ^ i think yours is based on fuck all. there's more people out of work than jobs. now add slave labour into the mix, and aint none of them unemployed folk ever gone get a paying job. [/quote]
^ Agreed.
I feel what would work better is possibly these companies pay into unemployment for the services rendered. That way the companies aren't getting free labor, cause that would be too easy for them to take advantage of and never hire any one. Then again, some one above mentioned community service, that to me is an excellent idea, but then again the people need rights and can't be treated as slaves. But it would be good for those that have been unemployed for way too long. Those people should report to a caseworker on a monthly basis and show how many resumes they have sent out. But to say they need to earn their unemployment is BS, at least here in the states cause you get what you have already paid into it and when your out of benefits your done. Also it really pisses me off to here the news saying unemployment has dropped. Oh bullshit! I know plenty of people that have lost great jobs, at no fault of their own, just the stinkin economy n such and have to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. Just cause these people are working at McDonalds, doesn't mean their employment problems are solved.
n0body wrote:
^ i think yours is based on fuck all. there's more people out of work than jobs. now add slave labour into the mix, and aint none of them unemployed folk ever gone get a paying job.
^ Agreed.
I feel what would work better is possibly these companies pay into unemployment for the services rendered. That way the companies aren't getting free labor, cause that would be too easy for them to take advantage of and never hire any one. Then again, some one above mentioned community service, that to me is an excellent idea, but then again the people need rights and can't be treated as slaves. But it would be good for those that have been unemployed for way too long. Those people should report to a caseworker on a monthly basis and show how many resumes they have sent out. But to say they need to earn their unemployment is BS, at least here in the states cause you get what you have already paid into it and when your out of benefits your done. Also it really pisses me off to here the news saying unemployment has dropped. Oh bullshit! I know plenty of people that have lost great jobs, at no fault of their own, just the stinkin economy n such and have to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. Just cause these people are working at McDonalds, doesn't mean their employment problems are solved.
@Shanus. Yeah, I've heard about the problem the US has with seasonal/manual labour shortages. Britain has it to a degree. The trouble is, farm work is by definition in the countryside, where there's less people. Farms aren't too badly hit, but places like mushroom factories/chicken hatcheries sometimes have a problem, but they also have a reputation for worker exploitation, sometimes not even paying workers. Of course, they've gotten around it by "contracting" out the work, so some Ukrainian can get bus a load of illiterates out to work for a tenner a day. The chances of you moving to a rural town and getting cheap rented accommodation on 53 quid a week given Britain's housing stock problems are pretty slim though.
The other jobs...well, they don't all translate to Britain, but even if they did, there aren't millions of them. They're fairly specialised, almost anomalies. For what you do the pay sucks too, though it'd be marginally higher in Britland. But the free market dictates that wages should rise if they can't get the workers, so maybe it's bosses tryin to be tight.
As for your black marketeer cousin, there isn't anything wrong with window cleaning, I used it as an example. I could've said carpet cleaning, dog walking...all sorts of shit. There comes a time when the market gets saturated, or when there just isn't disposable income for things like that, and that time is Britain right now. (Black Market ftw :p)
I thought you right wingers would be all against taxpayer money going to profitable businesses, with the government paying people to work for big business. If the problem ye have is the actual welfare payments, would it not be better to have them working for the government for the dole? Instead of paying a government worker full wages you could have five of these picking up rubbish, or clamping illegally parked cars. As long as they got travel/food expenses too I don't think even I'd have a problem with that.
@Shanus. Yeah, I've heard about the problem the US has with seasonal/manual labour shortages. Britain has it to a degree. The trouble is, farm work is by definition in the countryside, where there's less people. Farms aren't too badly hit, but places like mushroom factories/chicken hatcheries sometimes have a problem, but they also have a reputation for worker exploitation, sometimes not even paying workers. Of course, they've gotten around it by "contracting" out the work, so some Ukrainian can get bus a load of illiterates out to work for a tenner a day. The chances of you moving to a rural town and getting cheap rented accommodation on 53 quid a week given Britain's housing stock problems are pretty slim though.
The other jobs...well, they don't all translate to Britain, but even if they did, there aren't millions of them. They're fairly specialised, almost anomalies. For what you do the pay sucks too, though it'd be marginally higher in Britland. But the free market dictates that wages should rise if they can't get the workers, so maybe it's bosses tryin to be tight.
As for your black marketeer cousin, there isn't anything wrong with window cleaning, I used it as an example. I could've said carpet cleaning, dog walking...all sorts of shit. There comes a time when the market gets saturated, or when there just isn't disposable income for things like that, and that time is Britain right now. (Black Market ftw :p)
I thought you right wingers would be all against taxpayer money going to profitable businesses, with the government paying people to work for big business. If the problem ye have is the actual welfare payments, would it not be better to have them working for the government for the dole? Instead of paying a government worker full wages you could have five of these picking up rubbish, or clamping illegally parked cars. As long as they got travel/food expenses too I don't think even I'd have a problem with that.
[quote user=Scobiewan] @Shanus. Yeah, I've heard about the problem the US has with seasonal/manual labour shortages. Britain has it to a degree. The trouble is, farm work is by definition in the countryside, where there's less people. Farms aren't too badly hit, but places like mushroom factories/chicken hatcheries sometimes have a problem, but they also have a reputation for worker exploitation, sometimes not even paying workers. Of course, they've gotten around it by "contracting" out the work, so some Ukrainian can get bus a load of illiterates out to work for a tenner a day. The chances of you moving to a rural town and getting cheap rented accommodation on 53 quid a week given Britain's housing stock problems are pretty slim though.
The other jobs...well, they don't all translate to Britain, but even if they did, there aren't millions of them. They're fairly specialised, almost anomalies. For what you do the pay sucks too, though it'd be marginally higher in Britland. But the free market dictates that wages should rise if they can't get the workers, so maybe it's bosses tryin to be tight.
As for your black marketeer cousin, there isn't anything wrong with window cleaning, I used it as an example. I could've said carpet cleaning, dog walking...all sorts of shit. There comes a time when the market gets saturated, or when there just isn't disposable income for things like that, and that time is Britain right now. (Black Market ftw :p)
I thought you right wingers would be all against taxpayer money going to profitable businesses, with the government paying people to work for big business. If the problem ye have is the actual welfare payments, would it not be better to have them working for the government for the dole? Instead of paying a government worker full wages you could have five of these picking up rubbish, or clamping illegally parked cars. As long as they got travel/food expenses too I don't think even I'd have a problem with that. [/quote]
Funny.
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
Scobiewan wrote:
@Shanus. Yeah, I've heard about the problem the US has with seasonal/manual labour shortages. Britain has it to a degree. The trouble is, farm work is by definition in the countryside, where there's less people. Farms aren't too badly hit, but places like mushroom factories/chicken hatcheries sometimes have a problem, but they also have a reputation for worker exploitation, sometimes not even paying workers. Of course, they've gotten around it by "contracting" out the work, so some Ukrainian can get bus a load of illiterates out to work for a tenner a day. The chances of you moving to a rural town and getting cheap rented accommodation on 53 quid a week given Britain's housing stock problems are pretty slim though.
The other jobs...well, they don't all translate to Britain, but even if they did, there aren't millions of them. They're fairly specialised, almost anomalies. For what you do the pay sucks too, though it'd be marginally higher in Britland. But the free market dictates that wages should rise if they can't get the workers, so maybe it's bosses tryin to be tight.
As for your black marketeer cousin, there isn't anything wrong with window cleaning, I used it as an example. I could've said carpet cleaning, dog walking...all sorts of shit. There comes a time when the market gets saturated, or when there just isn't disposable income for things like that, and that time is Britain right now. (Black Market ftw :p)
I thought you right wingers would be all against taxpayer money going to profitable businesses, with the government paying people to work for big business. If the problem ye have is the actual welfare payments, would it not be better to have them working for the government for the dole? Instead of paying a government worker full wages you could have five of these picking up rubbish, or clamping illegally parked cars. As long as they got travel/food expenses too I don't think even I'd have a problem with that.
Funny.
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting. [/quote]
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"? 2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying?
proofinlife wrote:
Funny.
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"? 2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
[quote user=Scobiewan] [quote user=proofinlife]You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.[/quote]
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"? 2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying? [/quote]
Quoting your argument woudl make this thread unimaginably hard to scroll through.
Instead I will ask you to read over every single one of your posts in regards to my points on businesses choosing candidates based on their motivation to do a good job and ability, and your rebuttals claiming the general public has an inherent "right" to those jobs over the employment pool. I made it clear that was up to the employer, whether he wanted to hire someone he could visibly see did a good job, or take the risk and hire someone who simply says they are good on paper.
This was all about the same time you were claiming it was slave labour from people already being paid benefits. I don't care how much.... they're getting paid, go cry in a corner for them while listening to bonjovi for all i care. I'll go rent a violin and learn how to play it for you.
There are plenty of people in your country, just like ANY country with a welfare system, that choose to not work and sit on the system all their lives. It's called moving in with parents or a party of 5 in a one bedroom apartment. It's do able, disgusting, but doable (I personally look down on that, but whatever, i guess they are surviving). You should be happy that some people are actually using the system to go out and expose themselves to a workforce and get themselves back in the game as fast possible.
Scobiewan wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"? 2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying?
Quoting your argument woudl make this thread unimaginably hard to scroll through.
Instead I will ask you to read over every single one of your posts in regards to my points on businesses choosing candidates based on their motivation to do a good job and ability, and your rebuttals claiming the general public has an inherent "right" to those jobs over the employment pool. I made it clear that was up to the employer, whether he wanted to hire someone he could visibly see did a good job, or take the risk and hire someone who simply says they are good on paper.
This was all about the same time you were claiming it was slave labour from people already being paid benefits. I don't care how much.... they're getting paid, go cry in a corner for them while listening to bonjovi for all i care. I'll go rent a violin and learn how to play it for you.
There are plenty of people in your country, just like ANY country with a welfare system, that choose to not work and sit on the system all their lives. It's called moving in with parents or a party of 5 in a one bedroom apartment. It's do able, disgusting, but doable (I personally look down on that, but whatever, i guess they are surviving). You should be happy that some people are actually using the system to go out and expose themselves to a workforce and get themselves back in the game as fast possible.
[quote user=proofinlife]I talk lots of shit. [/quote]
Thought so. Dunno what thread you were reading, but you weren't reading this one. Not once did I say anything about a right to a job, or insurance. The fact that you plain out admitted lying means I've won.
proofinlife wrote:
I talk lots of shit.
Thought so. Dunno what thread you were reading, but you weren't reading this one. Not once did I say anything about a right to a job, or insurance. The fact that you plain out admitted lying means I've won.
Here it is, with my response, of course, so you can scroll up to that point and relive it all, relevant part bolded and underlined for your viewing aesthetics :
[quote user=Scobiewan]This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.[/quote]
Keep your palm on your face for yourself, scobie.
This isn't about the business, this thread has always been about the people.
Your original argument was that people were being forced into slavery by the state. I completely blew that out of the water. I also pointed out that necessary businesses get free labour in the form of paid workers to keep up their economical end of the deal and prevent them for going under and providing more jobs. If a business can't get people apply or stay there, what do you expect them to do, whither away and die (We are in a Recession, you know?)? Especially if this is a business in a key market for growth? If people were able to get jobs, don't you think they woud have gotten a job instead of resorting to a job fishing system like this? Exactly.
Now you're starting on a completely different argument and then claiming everyone is stupid for not seeing it your way.
If we were arguing about that, Scobie, maybe we would have been talking about that. But we weren't.
Maybe, just maybe, all of TAN aren't the morons, maybe you on your lonesome are the moron?
I forgot to add in that retort, that you don't seem to realize that welfare is still taxed, and people still have to pay income tax on it.
Nope *
Here it is, with my response, of course, so you can scroll up to that point and relive it all, relevant part bolded and underlined for your viewing aesthetics :
Scobiewan wrote:
This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.
Keep your palm on your face for yourself, scobie.
This isn't about the business, this thread has always been about the people.
Your original argument was that people were being forced into slavery by the state. I completely blew that out of the water. I also pointed out that necessary businesses get free labour in the form of paid workers to keep up their economical end of the deal and prevent them for going under and providing more jobs. If a business can't get people apply or stay there, what do you expect them to do, whither away and die (We are in a Recession, you know?)? Especially if this is a business in a key market for growth? If people were able to get jobs, don't you think they woud have gotten a job instead of resorting to a job fishing system like this? Exactly.
Now you're starting on a completely different argument and then claiming everyone is stupid for not seeing it your way.
If we were arguing about that, Scobie, maybe we would have been talking about that. But we weren't.
Maybe, just maybe, all of TAN aren't the morons, maybe you on your lonesome are the moron?
^You're making a fool of yourself now. No "right to a job", no "right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted. But keep it up, keep quoting yourself telling lies, it's doing wonders for your image, though with this amount of back-pedalling it seems your ego is taking quite a self flagellation.
You lose@tan.
^You're making a fool of yourself now. No "right to a job", no "right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted. But keep it up, keep quoting yourself telling lies, it's doing wonders for your image, though with this amount of back-pedalling it seems your ego is taking quite a self flagellation.
[quote user=Scobiewan] ^You're making a fool of yourself now. No "right to a job", no right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted. But keep it up, keep quoting yourself telling lies, it's doing wonders for your image, though with this amount of back-pedalling it seems your ego is taking quite a self flagellation.
You lose@tan. [/quote]
hey, you were the one that openly said to give the regular joes looking for a job the job over the person in the employment placement system regardless if they were more qualified or better suited for the task. That sounds like entitlement and rights to me.
Could you please point out where I said you said people had a right to insurance? In that last post I was pretty clear that I don't support people who sit on welfare systems. Quotes, please.
Scobiewan wrote:
^You're making a fool of yourself now. No "right to a job", no right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted. But keep it up, keep quoting yourself telling lies, it's doing wonders for your image, though with this amount of back-pedalling it seems your ego is taking quite a self flagellation.
You lose@tan.
hey, you were the one that openly said to give the regular joes looking for a job the job over the person in the employment placement system regardless if they were more qualified or better suited for the task. That sounds like entitlement and rights to me.
Could you please point out where I said you said people had a right to insurance? In that last post I was pretty clear that I don't support people who sit on welfare systems. Quotes, please.
You are quite possibly the dumbest person on the internets right now.
[quote user=proofinlife] You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting. [/quote]
I followed up this lie with: [quote user=Scobiewan] Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"? 2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying? [/quote]
Then, when you couldn't find a quote attributed to me along those lines because they don't exist, you quoted yourself as proof that I said it. Which prompted me to say of your comment:
[quote user=Scobiewan] ...No "right to a job", no "right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted. [/quote]
because, you know, you failed to show where I said that.
Dude, it's over. You're tying yourself up in knots now, you can't even remember what you said anymore. That I even had to explain this to you in excruciatingly simple language so you'd understand is unbelievable. Really. I'm practically in shock at how staggeringly deficient you are.
Someone stick a fork in him, he's done.
Oh ffs!-no!-for fuck's sake!!
You are quite possibly the dumbest person on the internets right now.
proofinlife wrote:
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
I followed up this lie with:
Scobiewan wrote:
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"? 2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying?
Then, when you couldn't find a quote attributed to me along those lines because they don't exist, you quoted yourself as proof that I said it. Which prompted me to say of your comment:
Scobiewan wrote:
...No "right to a job", no "right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted.
because, you know, you failed to show where I said that.
Dude, it's over. You're tying yourself up in knots now, you can't even remember what you said anymore. That I even had to explain this to you in excruciatingly simple language so you'd understand is unbelievable. Really. I'm practically in shock at how staggeringly deficient you are.
You don't even live in this country, so you can't say fuck all.
There are jobs out there, but there are just too many people applying for them.
I became unemployed for 9 months thanks to the recession and I have been applying for 10-20 jobs A DAY. The ones who do get back to me with a rejection ( a very few) tell me they have had far too many applicants. Two weeks ago I went for an interview for a £100 a week IT Technician internship and the interviewer told me they had over 600 CVs sent to them, short-listed to about 10.
If I get sucked into this government's work experience programme then I will finally know how it will feel like to be a Jew boarding a train and being sent to Auschwitz.
You don't even live in this country, so you can't say fuck all.
There are jobs out there, but there are just too many people applying for them.
I became unemployed for 9 months thanks to the recession and I have been applying for 10-20 jobs A DAY. The ones who do get back to me with a rejection ( a very few) tell me they have had far too many applicants. Two weeks ago I went for an interview for a £100 a week IT Technician internship and the interviewer told me they had over 600 CVs sent to them, short-listed to about 10.
If I get sucked into this government's work experience programme then I will finally know how it will feel like to be a Jew boarding a train and being sent to Auschwitz.
If I get sucked into this government's work experience programme then I will finally know how it will feel like to be a Jew boarding a train and being sent to Auschwitz.
[/quote]
you lost me there...
Ras wrote:
If I get sucked into this government's work experience programme then I will finally know how it will feel like to be a Jew boarding a train and being sent to Auschwitz.
You are quite possibly the dumbest person on the internets right now.
[quote user=proofinlife] as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.[/quote]
I followed up this lie with: [quote user=Scobiewan]Or are you just lying?[/quote]
Then, when you couldn't find a quote attributed to me along those lines because they don't exist, you quoted yourself as proof that I said it. Which prompted me to say of your comment:
[quote user=Scobiewan]...No "right to a job", no "right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted.[/quote]
because, you know, you failed to show where I said that.
Dude, it's over. You're tying yourself up in knots now, you can't even remember what you said anymore. That I even had to explain this to you in excruciatingly simple language so you'd understand is unbelievable. Really. I'm practically in shock at how staggeringly deficient you are.
Someone stick a fork in him, he's done. [/quote]
Found the quote, posted it, you ignored and self flagellated as the ladies would say.
Scobiewan wrote:
Oh ffs!-no!-for fuck's sake!!
You are quite possibly the dumbest person on the internets right now.
proofinlife wrote:
as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
I followed up this lie with:
Scobiewan wrote:
Or are you just lying?
Then, when you couldn't find a quote attributed to me along those lines because they don't exist, you quoted yourself as proof that I said it. Which prompted me to say of your comment:
Scobiewan wrote:
...No "right to a job", no "right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted.
because, you know, you failed to show where I said that.
Dude, it's over. You're tying yourself up in knots now, you can't even remember what you said anymore. That I even had to explain this to you in excruciatingly simple language so you'd understand is unbelievable. Really. I'm practically in shock at how staggeringly deficient you are.
Someone stick a fork in him, he's done.
Found the quote, posted it, you ignored and self flagellated as the ladies would say.
scobie said: 1. there are more people than jobs 2. people won't work for nothing 3. the government is handling it wrong 4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to 5. work should be made more attainable
proof said: 1. there are more people than jobs 2. people won't work for nothing 3. the government is handling it wrong 4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to 5. work should be made more attainable
... did i miss anything?
you know what i got out of this?
scobie said: 1. there are more people than jobs 2. people won't work for nothing 3. the government is handling it wrong 4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to 5. work should be made more attainable
proof said: 1. there are more people than jobs 2. people won't work for nothing 3. the government is handling it wrong 4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to 5. work should be made more attainable
[quote user=jeuxstine] you know what i got out of this?
scobie said: 1. there are more people than jobs 2. people won't work for nothing 3. the government is handling it wrong 4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to 5. work should be made more attainable
proof said: 1. there are more people than jobs 2. people won't work for nothing 3. the government is handling it wrong 4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to 5. work should be made more attainable
... did i miss anything? [/quote]
yes.. this part:
NANANANA you stooopid!!!
No U!!!
jeuxstine wrote:
you know what i got out of this?
scobie said: 1. there are more people than jobs 2. people won't work for nothing 3. the government is handling it wrong 4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to 5. work should be made more attainable
proof said: 1. there are more people than jobs 2. people won't work for nothing 3. the government is handling it wrong 4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to 5. work should be made more attainable
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.
Nice to see srzwan back in the trenches.
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.
[quote user=pablo420] Nice to see srzwan back in the trenches.
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies. [/quote]
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
pablo420 wrote:
Nice to see srzwan back in the trenches.
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=pablo420]What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.[/quote]
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic. [/quote]
Syndicalism....fascism.
otester wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=pablo420]What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.[/quote]
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic. [/quote]
That was kinda my point.
otester wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
scobie seems to be holding the arguments better, cos proof's offshots with substituting what he think scobie said with what scobie actually said is, well, kind of sad. the first part of this had a quite good discussion on the negatives with government making dole people readily available for corporations to use, which was the only really interesting part about this. saying businesses won't misuse this opportunity is kind of naïve. saying they will all abuse this is sensationalistic. but that it won't be abused at all is dumb. businesses get an opportunity to fill in holes and balance the workload without having to pay for the stuff, so instead of hiring a new person on a 20% contract to keep the shittiest duties at a store obligated, they might as well save those monies by keeping people from the dole queue rotating instead of hiring new people over and over again cos they get fed up with the job (not because of the pay, but because of the duties. the loss for that store would be minimal if they could keep idiots coming in for whatever period of time, do the shit, get tired of it and leave). by doing that they miss out on the chance of hiring a person who'd actually do the job properly and appreciate the pay he gets, which keeps him unemployed because some douchebag boss finds it to be no hassle at all (and adds positives to the budget) to keep rotating the government paid monkeys.
secondly i came across the part where proofinlife said that anyone can start a business. what i read from that is that everyone should start a business. if they're not making money, they must be idiots, cos anyone can do it. in 2009, in norway, about 6500 businesses went bust. that's in a country of barely 5 million. now, this was the highest since 2003, when there was about 6300 companies going down. my bet is that many of these were startups, single person businesses, cos huge, established corporations don't go down by the year 'round these parts. so true, anyone can start a business, but not anyone can run it. following that i'd also like to see a discussion on why people won't go into business on their own. i seriously don't think it's for everyone. there are both sociological and anthropological issues with this that i am not very well versed in, but i have crossed paths with ideas of why some people are a steve jobs type, while others aren't. anyone can try to emulate a successful businessman, but it is out of many people's comfort zones to be something they're not. and proofinlife, when i say comfort zone, it might not actually be a comfortable zone. i'm not comfortable around mentally challenged people, especially those who seem to be full blown tomato, but it's not outside my comfort zone to work with them.
thirdly, this thread is long, and the women are working well to derail it by slandering and being womanly, like they do with most things in life
scobie seems to be holding the arguments better, cos proof's offshots with substituting what he think scobie said with what scobie actually said is, well, kind of sad. the first part of this had a quite good discussion on the negatives with government making dole people readily available for corporations to use, which was the only really interesting part about this. saying businesses won't misuse this opportunity is kind of naïve. saying they will all abuse this is sensationalistic. but that it won't be abused at all is dumb. businesses get an opportunity to fill in holes and balance the workload without having to pay for the stuff, so instead of hiring a new person on a 20% contract to keep the shittiest duties at a store obligated, they might as well save those monies by keeping people from the dole queue rotating instead of hiring new people over and over again cos they get fed up with the job (not because of the pay, but because of the duties. the loss for that store would be minimal if they could keep idiots coming in for whatever period of time, do the shit, get tired of it and leave). by doing that they miss out on the chance of hiring a person who'd actually do the job properly and appreciate the pay he gets, which keeps him unemployed because some douchebag boss finds it to be no hassle at all (and adds positives to the budget) to keep rotating the government paid monkeys.
secondly i came across the part where proofinlife said that anyone can start a business. what i read from that is that everyone should start a business. if they're not making money, they must be idiots, cos anyone can do it. in 2009, in norway, about 6500 businesses went bust. that's in a country of barely 5 million. now, this was the highest since 2003, when there was about 6300 companies going down. my bet is that many of these were startups, single person businesses, cos huge, established corporations don't go down by the year 'round these parts. so true, anyone can start a business, but not anyone can run it. following that i'd also like to see a discussion on why people won't go into business on their own. i seriously don't think it's for everyone. there are both sociological and anthropological issues with this that i am not very well versed in, but i have crossed paths with ideas of why some people are a steve jobs type, while others aren't. anyone can try to emulate a successful businessman, but it is out of many people's comfort zones to be something they're not. and proofinlife, when i say comfort zone, it might not actually be a comfortable zone. i'm not comfortable around mentally challenged people, especially those who seem to be full blown tomato, but it's not outside my comfort zone to work with them.
thirdly, this thread is long, and the women are working well to derail it by slandering and being womanly, like they do with most things in life
Had these workers been paid for their labour, they would have paid the state £50.57 in tax per week, and so the state is losing nearly £18m a week in unpaid taxes from the worker alone. This excludes employers NICs as well as increased VAT etc. But not only that, throughout the time that Sainsbury's and Tesco's use these workers for unpaid labour, we continue to pay these youths benefits. Under the scheme we will be giving each forced worker a payment of £67.50. And so we pay a total of £23.6m in a weeks worth of benefit payments to the proposed 350,000 workers. The grand total of this loss to the worker and taxpayer is £150m for a week's worth of workfare.
Had these workers been paid for their labour, they would have paid the state £50.57 in tax per week, and so the state is losing nearly £18m a week in unpaid taxes from the worker alone. This excludes employers NICs as well as increased VAT etc. But not only that, throughout the time that Sainsbury's and Tesco's use these workers for unpaid labour, we continue to pay these youths benefits. Under the scheme we will be giving each forced worker a payment of £67.50. And so we pay a total of £23.6m in a weeks worth of benefit payments to the proposed 350,000 workers. The grand total of this loss to the worker and taxpayer is £150m for a week's worth of workfare.
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer] Once again I see nothing wrong with that.
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement." [/quote]
Without reading the rest of this thread (yet) I can see I agree with the above.
Also, at what point are they not getting paid? They get job seekers for free. They get paid. If they want a better job they'll fucking find one. I was on the dole for 3 months. Three whole months and a measly fucking 270 quid. Having to go to the job centre was enough of a fuck about to make me find a job.
LithuanianLabourer wrote:
Once again I see nothing wrong with that.
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."
Without reading the rest of this thread (yet) I can see I agree with the above.
Also, at what point are they not getting paid? They get job seekers for free. They get paid. If they want a better job they'll fucking find one. I was on the dole for 3 months. Three whole months and a measly fucking 270 quid. Having to go to the job centre was enough of a fuck about to make me find a job.
Aye, I was reading over some of the literature on New Labour's 'New Deal' and we had pretty much the same issues raised. Slightly different payment system, but companies such as Tesco were being paid £70 a week to 'hire' staff, and then another £750 to 'train' those they 'hired'. I thinkTesco ended up being subsidised to the tune of £4 billion.
The thing that gets me is these companies have openings, they need staff, so they should be hiring staff instead of relying on free labour, state subsidised free labour, courtesy of the DWP.
I remember the company I worked for got on-board with the New Deal, and they made a small fortune. The thing was, there was no shortage of legitimate applicants for positions, and we needed staff at the time, but instead of legitimately hiring staff and paying for them, they received a carousel of incredibly cheap labour courtesy of the state. Quids in.
@ Pablo
Aye, I was reading over some of the literature on New Labour's 'New Deal' and we had pretty much the same issues raised. Slightly different payment system, but companies such as Tesco were being paid £70 a week to 'hire' staff, and then another £750 to 'train' those they 'hired'. I thinkTesco ended up being subsidised to the tune of £4 billion.
The thing that gets me is these companies have openings, they need staff, so they should be hiring staff instead of relying on free labour, state subsidised free labour, courtesy of the DWP.
I remember the company I worked for got on-board with the New Deal, and they made a small fortune. The thing was, there was no shortage of legitimate applicants for positions, and we needed staff at the time, but instead of legitimately hiring staff and paying for them, they received a carousel of incredibly cheap labour courtesy of the state. Quids in.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]As if hundreds of thousands of young people don't already have problems with unpaid internships where employers keep them working for free by dangling the promise of incredibly elusive permanent paid positions.[/quote]
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job. [/quote]
They get paid JSA. It's not unpaid.
proofinlife wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
As if hundreds of thousands of young people don't already have problems with unpaid internships where employers keep them working for free by dangling the promise of incredibly elusive permanent paid positions.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
[quote user=Matt2k35] [quote user=LithuanianLabourer]Once again I see nothing wrong with that.
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."[/quote]
Without reading the rest of this thread (yet) I can see I agree with the above.
Also, at what point are they not getting paid? They get job seekers for free. They get paid. If they want a better job they'll fucking find one. I was on the dole for 3 months. Three whole months and a measly fucking 270 quid. Having to go to the job centre was enough of a fuck about to make me find a job. [/quote]
I get less than that for working a part-time job
Matt2k35 wrote:
LithuanianLabourer wrote:
Once again I see nothing wrong with that.
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."
Without reading the rest of this thread (yet) I can see I agree with the above.
Also, at what point are they not getting paid? They get job seekers for free. They get paid. If they want a better job they'll fucking find one. I was on the dole for 3 months. Three whole months and a measly fucking 270 quid. Having to go to the job centre was enough of a fuck about to make me find a job.
It was £180 a month, £90 every two weeks. so probably more like £360 over 3 months. Not a right lot at all. But still, it was free. I don't see any harm in making people work for their dole.
It was £180 a month, £90 every two weeks. so probably more like £360 over 3 months. Not a right lot at all. But still, it was free. I don't see any harm in making people work for their dole.
[quote user=Matt2k35] [quote user=proofinlife], because they aren't being paid and want a job.[/quote]
They get paid JSA. It's not unpaid. [/quote]
... If Tesco, or any other company use this 'service', then it's because they need labour. If Tesco or any other company need labour, they should hire staff which they pay for themselves and not rely on labour that is free to them because it is being paid for by the state. If Tesco or any other company use this service they may well see that it's in their best financial interest not to always hire permanent staff and instead rely on the DWP sending free labour their way every few weeks.
We make a tax loss, we subsidise private companies, and we put people into work at below NMW rates creating a cheap source of labour and in so doing keep wages down. 30 hours a week at NMW is £182... JSA is £53 a week, and the companies 'hiring' these people aren't even paying that, WE ARE!
Matt2k35 wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
They get paid JSA. It's not unpaid.
... If Tesco, or any other company use this 'service', then it's because they need labour. If Tesco or any other company need labour, they should hire staff which they pay for themselves and not rely on labour that is free to them because it is being paid for by the state. If Tesco or any other company use this service they may well see that it's in their best financial interest not to always hire permanent staff and instead rely on the DWP sending free labour their way every few weeks.
We make a tax loss, we subsidise private companies, and we put people into work at below NMW rates creating a cheap source of labour and in so doing keep wages down. 30 hours a week at NMW is £182... JSA is £53 a week, and the companies 'hiring' these people aren't even paying that, WE ARE!
^ Yeah I can see that. Plenty of room to improve upon the idea.
Like, for instance, Tesco can only request workers if they both need them and would be willing to employ suitable people afterwards. Say they take 10 people for 3 months, after the 3 months they must employ at least 8, or repay the government.
Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all. Why is it as soon as these people are expected to work to earn that free money (which no longer becomes free and people can stop villifying them) people call it slavery? I'd bet black slaves would've LOVED the freedom to move around as often as they wanted, had their own money to spend and didn't have a curfew to keep or sleep in the barn. They would have given their left arms to be a part of a society where you earn your own money, everyone has a fair chance regardless of class colour or creed. Fuck, go back in time and borrow some slaves from a wealthy cotton farmer, bring them here and tell them about life and they'd think you were fucking crackers. "whut, sir, dem peoples are all queuing for dur free monies?!" "Yep, in this day and age we give drug addicts, alcoholics and lazy people all the money they need to be druggy, pisshead lazy cunts!" "yous a lying, boss" "nope, honestly, this is how fucked up society is these days. Ready to go back to picking cotton for no wage?"
^ Yeah I can see that. Plenty of room to improve upon the idea.
Like, for instance, Tesco can only request workers if they both need them and would be willing to employ suitable people afterwards. Say they take 10 people for 3 months, after the 3 months they must employ at least 8, or repay the government.
Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all. Why is it as soon as these people are expected to work to earn that free money (which no longer becomes free and people can stop villifying them) people call it slavery? I'd bet black slaves would've LOVED the freedom to move around as often as they wanted, had their own money to spend and didn't have a curfew to keep or sleep in the barn. They would have given their left arms to be a part of a society where you earn your own money, everyone has a fair chance regardless of class colour or creed. Fuck, go back in time and borrow some slaves from a wealthy cotton farmer, bring them here and tell them about life and they'd think you were fucking crackers. "whut, sir, dem peoples are all queuing for dur free monies?!" "Yep, in this day and age we give drug addicts, alcoholics and lazy people all the money they need to be druggy, pisshead lazy cunts!" "yous a lying, boss" "nope, honestly, this is how fucked up society is these days. Ready to go back to picking cotton for no wage?"
^ How about this, Tesco can only request the workers they require to fill their vacancies if they're willing to employ them on the same basis as their other employees. My mother works for Tesco, they are constantly under-staffed and it's not because people aren't applying for jobs, it's because Tesco are greedy fucks who will squeeze as much out of their staff as possible before even thinking of hiring a new staff member. If they can find a way to exploit this new system, they will... they did so with the New Deal.
^ How about this, Tesco can only request the workers they require to fill their vacancies if they're willing to employ them on the same basis as their other employees. My mother works for Tesco, they are constantly under-staffed and it's not because people aren't applying for jobs, it's because Tesco are greedy fucks who will squeeze as much out of their staff as possible before even thinking of hiring a new staff member. If they can find a way to exploit this new system, they will... they did so with the New Deal.
Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all. [/quote]
They're not paid to do fuck all. The concept is simple, people are given barely enough money to survive on so they feel compelled to find work, and for the most part it works. There is also a contract which states that if you don't fulfil the obligations (looking for at least X amount of jobs a week) then you don't get your state benefits. In effect you're being paid to live while you look for work.
Now, I know that there are people on the fiddle, but compare the £1 billion or so lost to fraud and incompetence in the benefits budget to the £70 to £120 billion lost through tax avoidance and evasion by some of our biggest companies and wealthiest individuals and you start to question 'why' is it we force people into these schemes which benefit private companies while at the same time letting companies such as Tesco, or the latest example Vodafone, get away with not paying a tax bill of £8 billion.
There is something tragically wrong with the narrative in this country that we attack those at the bottom of the ladder, those who aren't that much of a problem as compared to the real social leeches that avoid paying millions, hundreds of millions, and billions in taxes.
Matt2k35 wrote:
Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all.
They're not paid to do fuck all. The concept is simple, people are given barely enough money to survive on so they feel compelled to find work, and for the most part it works. There is also a contract which states that if you don't fulfil the obligations (looking for at least X amount of jobs a week) then you don't get your state benefits. In effect you're being paid to live while you look for work.
Now, I know that there are people on the fiddle, but compare the £1 billion or so lost to fraud and incompetence in the benefits budget to the £70 to £120 billion lost through tax avoidance and evasion by some of our biggest companies and wealthiest individuals and you start to question 'why' is it we force people into these schemes which benefit private companies while at the same time letting companies such as Tesco, or the latest example Vodafone, get away with not paying a tax bill of £8 billion.
There is something tragically wrong with the narrative in this country that we attack those at the bottom of the ladder, those who aren't that much of a problem as compared to the real social leeches that avoid paying millions, hundreds of millions, and billions in taxes.
Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
Both DA's posts are exactly right.
Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
[quote user=proofinlife]Thumbs up to big for going to australia to find work, but he could've used his entrepeneurial skillset to create his own business instead of leaving the country (no dig at bigs, lol). He didn't have to be a window washer, he coudl've shovelled shit and made a decent living. Off topic, but I do find it ironic that big is callign this slavery when he left his country for a job that epitomized slavery for nearly a century...lol
[/quote]
wtf are you on about? i went aus to get pissed, not work. i had a job before i left, shit last time i was unemployed (for 3 months coz getting a job is a cunt) i went for 13 interviews (all in the same week) and got offered 12 of the jobs, so i got to pick. still that took 3 months, because as i said, aint no fucking jobs.
proofinlife wrote:
Thumbs up to big for going to australia to find work, but he could've used his entrepeneurial skillset to create his own business instead of leaving the country (no dig at bigs, lol). He didn't have to be a window washer, he coudl've shovelled shit and made a decent living. Off topic, but I do find it ironic that big is callign this slavery when he left his country for a job that epitomized slavery for nearly a century...lol
wtf are you on about? i went aus to get pissed, not work. i had a job before i left, shit last time i was unemployed (for 3 months coz getting a job is a cunt) i went for 13 interviews (all in the same week) and got offered 12 of the jobs, so i got to pick. still that took 3 months, because as i said, aint no fucking jobs.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=Matt2k35]Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all.[/quote]
They're not paid to do fuck all. The concept is simple, people are given barely enough money to survive on so they feel compelled to find work, and for the most part it works. There is also a contract which states that if you don't fulfil the obligations (looking for at least X amount of jobs a week) then you don't get your state benefits. In effect you're being paid to live while you look for work.
Now, I know that there are people on the fiddle, but compare the £1 billion or so lost to fraud and incompetence in the benefits budget to the £70 to £120 billion lost through tax avoidance and evasion by some of our biggest companies and wealthiest individuals and you start to question 'why' is it we force people into these schemes which benefit private companies while at the same time letting companies such as Tesco, or the latest example Vodafone, get away with not paying a tax bill of £8 billion.
There is something tragically wrong with the narrative in this country that we attack those at the bottom of the ladder, those who aren't that much of a problem as compared to the real social leeches that avoid paying millions, hundreds of millions, and billions in taxes. [/quote]
I call it reverse class war. The corporate media have created this mindset. Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press (Chomsky's propaganda model and all that jazz)
Oh, and I'm just gonna post this pic (again):
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Matt2k35 wrote:
Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all.
They're not paid to do fuck all. The concept is simple, people are given barely enough money to survive on so they feel compelled to find work, and for the most part it works. There is also a contract which states that if you don't fulfil the obligations (looking for at least X amount of jobs a week) then you don't get your state benefits. In effect you're being paid to live while you look for work.
Now, I know that there are people on the fiddle, but compare the £1 billion or so lost to fraud and incompetence in the benefits budget to the £70 to £120 billion lost through tax avoidance and evasion by some of our biggest companies and wealthiest individuals and you start to question 'why' is it we force people into these schemes which benefit private companies while at the same time letting companies such as Tesco, or the latest example Vodafone, get away with not paying a tax bill of £8 billion.
There is something tragically wrong with the narrative in this country that we attack those at the bottom of the ladder, those who aren't that much of a problem as compared to the real social leeches that avoid paying millions, hundreds of millions, and billions in taxes.
I call it reverse class war. The corporate media have created this mindset. Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press (Chomsky's propaganda model and all that jazz)
^ " Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press..."
Doesn't Britain already have the toughest restrictions on news media in the entire West? Also, most of your "press" is fucking tabloid celebrity worship. Not sure how you inject "reverse class warfare" into talking aboot some stupid skanks fake tits. You also have PLENTY of state run press.......so it's not like Brits don't have a choice. I looked up the "propaganda model". Pretty interesting. However, it seems that model is applicable to ANY news agency that has a slant of any sort. See Media Matters. So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way?
^ " Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press..."
Doesn't Britain already have the toughest restrictions on news media in the entire West? Also, most of your "press" is fucking tabloid celebrity worship. Not sure how you inject "reverse class warfare" into talking aboot some stupid skanks fake tits. You also have PLENTY of state run press.......so it's not like Brits don't have a choice. I looked up the "propaganda model". Pretty interesting. However, it seems that model is applicable to ANY news agency that has a slant of any sort. See Media Matters. So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way?
[quote user=ShanusMaximus] ^ " Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press..."
Doesn't Britain already have the toughest restrictions on news media in the entire West? Also, most of your "press" is fucking tabloid celebrity worship. Not sure how you inject "reverse class warfare" into talking aboot some stupid skanks fake tits. You also have PLENTY of state run press.......so it's not like Brits don't have a choice. I looked up the "propaganda model". Pretty interesting. However, it seems that model is applicable to ANY news agency that has a slant of any sort. See Media Matters. So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way? [/quote]
No mate you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media.
When you have newspapers like the Sun, The Mail and The Express, owned by millionaires, billionaires and large media corporations, whose main source of revenue is their advertisers and not their readership, then it comes as no surprise that the cost of welfare to the taxpayer is given front page coverage but the cost of tax avoidance is ignored. These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class.
This is no conspiracy; it's common sense.
ShanusMaximus wrote:
^ " Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press..."
Doesn't Britain already have the toughest restrictions on news media in the entire West? Also, most of your "press" is fucking tabloid celebrity worship. Not sure how you inject "reverse class warfare" into talking aboot some stupid skanks fake tits. You also have PLENTY of state run press.......so it's not like Brits don't have a choice. I looked up the "propaganda model". Pretty interesting. However, it seems that model is applicable to ANY news agency that has a slant of any sort. See Media Matters. So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way?
No mate you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media.
When you have newspapers like the Sun, The Mail and The Express, owned by millionaires, billionaires and large media corporations, whose main source of revenue is their advertisers and not their readership, then it comes as no surprise that the cost of welfare to the taxpayer is given front page coverage but the cost of tax avoidance is ignored. These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class.
[quote user=pablo420] [quote user=ShanusMaximus]So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way?[/quote]
No mate you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media.
When you have newspapers like the Sun, The Mail and The Express, owned by millionaires, billionaires and large media corporations, whose main source of revenue is their advertisers and not their readership, then it comes as no surprise that the cost of welfare to the taxpayer is given front page coverage but the cost of tax avoidance is ignored. These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class.
This is no conspiracy; it's common sense. [/quote]
So what? The Independent is owned by a millionaire. It seems to give a different view than the others including the BBC. You have to understand that readership and advertisers go hand in hand. You aren't going to advertise something your readers aren't going to respond to. Like......the hip-hop paper is going to advertise head shops, while the Christian paper will not. I've worked in media. Thats how it works. You don't HAVE to buy those papers. People will gravitate towards a media outlet that they feel best represents how they ALREADY feel. This propaganda model would work exactly the same for a government run agency. Was not the BBC accused of sexing up the Iraq war? That they are able to use this agency as a pulpit for THEIR agendas Left and Right? Frankly, I would be more worried about a government news outlet that I am paying for EVEN IF I DON'T LIKE IT, to be told what THEY want.
First you say, " I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media."
Then you say, "These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class."
You can't have it both ways.....which way is it?
pablo420 wrote:
ShanusMaximus wrote:
So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way?
No mate you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media.
When you have newspapers like the Sun, The Mail and The Express, owned by millionaires, billionaires and large media corporations, whose main source of revenue is their advertisers and not their readership, then it comes as no surprise that the cost of welfare to the taxpayer is given front page coverage but the cost of tax avoidance is ignored. These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class.
This is no conspiracy; it's common sense.
So what? The Independent is owned by a millionaire. It seems to give a different view than the others including the BBC. You have to understand that readership and advertisers go hand in hand. You aren't going to advertise something your readers aren't going to respond to. Like......the hip-hop paper is going to advertise head shops, while the Christian paper will not. I've worked in media. Thats how it works. You don't HAVE to buy those papers. People will gravitate towards a media outlet that they feel best represents how they ALREADY feel. This propaganda model would work exactly the same for a government run agency. Was not the BBC accused of sexing up the Iraq war? That they are able to use this agency as a pulpit for THEIR agendas Left and Right? Frankly, I would be more worried about a government news outlet that I am paying for EVEN IF I DON'T LIKE IT, to be told what THEY want.
First you say, " I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media."
Then you say, "These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class."
[quote user=ShanusMaximus] [quote user=pablo420]This is no conspiracy; it's common sense.[/quote]
So what? The Independent is owned by a millionaire. It seems to give a different view than the others including the BBC. You have to understand that readership and advertisers go hand in hand. You aren't going to advertise something your readers aren't going to respond to. Like......the hip-hop paper is going to advertise head shops, while the Christian paper will not. I've worked in media. Thats how it works. You don't HAVE to buy those papers. People will gravitate towards a media outlet that they feel best represents how they ALREADY feel. This propaganda model would work exactly the same for a government run agency. Was not the BBC accused of sexing up the Iraq war? That they are able to use this agency as a pulpit for THEIR agendas Left and Right? Frankly, I would be more worried about a government news outlet that I am paying for EVEN IF I DON'T LIKE IT, to be told what THEY want.
First you say, " I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media."
Then you say, "These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class."
You can't have it both ways.....which way is it?
[/quote]
The BBC exposed how the government's spin doctor Alistair Campbell 'sexed up' the case for war in the September 'dodgy' Dossier. As for the Beeb being a pulpit for government propaganda, lol... almost every government and political party has complained that the BBC has an axe to grind against them. The Tories complain that it's a liberal pinko outfit, Labour and the left complain that it's part of the establishment, the Lib-Dems used to moan about a lack of coverage, the BNP that it's politically correct... I wouldn't class the BBC as government run, it's operationally independent but paid for through a licence fee and is state owned, but just looking at the exposes of government and politicians in power on shows such as Panorama illustrates that content isn't dictated by Whitehall.
Regarding regulation of the press, they have a voluntary body made up of representatives of the press and a voluntary self-written code, and not all newspapers in the UK bother with it, for example the Express Group of newspapers withdrew at the beginning of the year and now don't have to abide by any regulatory framework with regard to what they print (apart from the Advertising Standards Agency and libel laws etc). The BBC by contrast is heavily regulated in what it does and is regulated by OFCOM and held to account under the Communications Act of 2003, the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the BBC Charter and Agreement.
ShanusMaximus wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
This is no conspiracy; it's common sense.
So what? The Independent is owned by a millionaire. It seems to give a different view than the others including the BBC. You have to understand that readership and advertisers go hand in hand. You aren't going to advertise something your readers aren't going to respond to. Like......the hip-hop paper is going to advertise head shops, while the Christian paper will not. I've worked in media. Thats how it works. You don't HAVE to buy those papers. People will gravitate towards a media outlet that they feel best represents how they ALREADY feel. This propaganda model would work exactly the same for a government run agency. Was not the BBC accused of sexing up the Iraq war? That they are able to use this agency as a pulpit for THEIR agendas Left and Right? Frankly, I would be more worried about a government news outlet that I am paying for EVEN IF I DON'T LIKE IT, to be told what THEY want.
First you say, " I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media."
Then you say, "These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class."
You can't have it both ways.....which way is it?
The BBC exposed how the government's spin doctor Alistair Campbell 'sexed up' the case for war in the September 'dodgy' Dossier. As for the Beeb being a pulpit for government propaganda, lol... almost every government and political party has complained that the BBC has an axe to grind against them. The Tories complain that it's a liberal pinko outfit, Labour and the left complain that it's part of the establishment, the Lib-Dems used to moan about a lack of coverage, the BNP that it's politically correct... I wouldn't class the BBC as government run, it's operationally independent but paid for through a licence fee and is state owned, but just looking at the exposes of government and politicians in power on shows such as Panorama illustrates that content isn't dictated by Whitehall.
Regarding regulation of the press, they have a voluntary body made up of representatives of the press and a voluntary self-written code, and not all newspapers in the UK bother with it, for example the Express Group of newspapers withdrew at the beginning of the year and now don't have to abide by any regulatory framework with regard to what they print (apart from the Advertising Standards Agency and libel laws etc). The BBC by contrast is heavily regulated in what it does and is regulated by OFCOM and held to account under the Communications Act of 2003, the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the BBC Charter and Agreement.
[quote user=Brig] Both DA's posts are exactly right.
Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk. [/quote]
No, I'm fine with the Welfare state and fully support the giving of hand outs. But I see a lot of dickheads who abuse the system and I think, "ok, why shouldn't these people who abuse the system be put to work?" Cut a drug dealer off from his free rent and council tax exemption and he's pretty screwed (except the big guys who rake it in the bucket loads).
And Pablo is absolutely batshit insane if he thinks the corporate media has created this mindset. When has there ever not been a culture of anger towards people who refuse to work? Not people who can't work, but people who refuse? Never. Some of the more conservative newspapers do push this idea of everyone on benefits, but since when has The Daily Mail ever not published utter shite used to rouse up their subscribers?
There are genuinely people who refuse to work, there are people looking for work and there are people who have no choice and cannot work. Those who refuse or scam the system? Why should they not be put to work for their JSA? What's unreasonable about it? Can you really expect Tesco to hire a load of chavs? There are clearly more people than there are jobs so not everyone is going to be suitable, but at least they were put somewhere and were working and learning. It doesn't even need to be a punishment, it could help young people who've never worked have a proper experience (let's face it, work experience is not an accurate measure) if only for a few months. Pretty sure Apprentices aren't legally entitled to much more. Last I knew it was £65 a week?
Done right and monitored for abuse, it could work.
Also, while I'm talking utter shite. We should start bringing back food stamps for people who continuously refuse work, or abuse alcohol/drugs with dole money. Take these things straight out of their hands.
Brig wrote:
Both DA's posts are exactly right.
Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
No, I'm fine with the Welfare state and fully support the giving of hand outs. But I see a lot of dickheads who abuse the system and I think, "ok, why shouldn't these people who abuse the system be put to work?" Cut a drug dealer off from his free rent and council tax exemption and he's pretty screwed (except the big guys who rake it in the bucket loads).
And Pablo is absolutely batshit insane if he thinks the corporate media has created this mindset. When has there ever not been a culture of anger towards people who refuse to work? Not people who can't work, but people who refuse? Never. Some of the more conservative newspapers do push this idea of everyone on benefits, but since when has The Daily Mail ever not published utter shite used to rouse up their subscribers?
There are genuinely people who refuse to work, there are people looking for work and there are people who have no choice and cannot work. Those who refuse or scam the system? Why should they not be put to work for their JSA? What's unreasonable about it? Can you really expect Tesco to hire a load of chavs? There are clearly more people than there are jobs so not everyone is going to be suitable, but at least they were put somewhere and were working and learning. It doesn't even need to be a punishment, it could help young people who've never worked have a proper experience (let's face it, work experience is not an accurate measure) if only for a few months. Pretty sure Apprentices aren't legally entitled to much more. Last I knew it was £65 a week?
Done right and monitored for abuse, it could work.
Also, while I'm talking utter shite. We should start bringing back food stamps for people who continuously refuse work, or abuse alcohol/drugs with dole money. Take these things straight out of their hands.
[quote user=Matt2k35] No, I'm fine with the Welfare state and fully support the giving of hand outs. But I see a lot of dickheads who abuse the system and I think, "ok, why shouldn't these people who abuse the system be put to work?" Cut a drug dealer off from his free rent and council tax exemption and he's pretty screwed (except the big guys who rake it in the bucket loads). [/quote]
Repetitively: Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
Stop being a cunt on this one, Matt. It's only for your benefit—not mine.
Matt2k35 wrote:
No, I'm fine with the Welfare state and fully support the giving of hand outs. But I see a lot of dickheads who abuse the system and I think, "ok, why shouldn't these people who abuse the system be put to work?" Cut a drug dealer off from his free rent and council tax exemption and he's pretty screwed (except the big guys who rake it in the bucket loads).
Repetitively: Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
Stop being a cunt on this one, Matt. It's only for your benefit—not mine.
129
| 284 views | www.guardian.co.uk
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."
[/quote]
You support uncontrolled welfare systems that druggies and lazy fucks use as a life support system?
Oh yeah, that's right, you're finnish, you have a knack for sucking russian penis and giving shit up for free.
You support uncontrolled welfare systems that druggies and lazy fucks use as a life support system?
Oh yeah, that's right, you're finnish, you have a knack for sucking russian penis and giving shit up for free.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
[/quote]
i was gone say something, then i saw this
[quote user=Scobiewan] Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
[/quote]
i was gone say something, then i saw this
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
To have workers, instead of having to get new staff every week, train them and have poop on the shelves. Also those are SHOPS, so the main work cleaning and re-stocking the shelves happens in night shifts, daytime shift is small and they are basicly wankers.
Overall even if 1 out of 10 gets to have a job, it's still better than sitting on your ass at home doing nothing.
Also it gets them moving around, they work and don't fall into vegetative state. I know I did, when I was unemployed.
To have workers, instead of having to get new staff every week, train them and have poop on the shelves. Also those are SHOPS, so the main work cleaning and re-stocking the shelves happens in night shifts, daytime shift is small and they are basicly wankers.
Overall even if 1 out of 10 gets to have a job, it's still better than sitting on your ass at home doing nothing.
Also it gets them moving around, they work and don't fall into vegetative state. I know I did, when I was unemployed.
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ?
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ?
To have workers, instead of having to get new staff every week, train them and have poop on the shelves. Also those are SHOPS, so the main work cleaning and re-stocking the shelves happens in night shifts, daytime shift is small and they are basicly wankers.
Overall even if 1 out of 10 gets to have a job, it's still better than sitting on your ass at home doing nothing.
Also it gets them moving around, they work and don't fall into vegetative state. I know I did, when I was unemployed.
[/quote]
No way, dude. 10 weeks unpaid per person. That means for every 5 slaves, you can let one person go, that's one person less contributing taxes and NI, and 5 more people being supported by the government but who work for a corporation. Unless you mean there'd be a surplus of staff, which means you don't need them in the first place.
You're not thinking this through at all. Why did you sit on your arse on the dole for months then? Why didn't you go off down to Blanch' shopping centre and work for free? Oh, that's right. Slavery isn't for you. But now you're a student, suddenly it is.
Weird.
To have workers, instead of having to get new staff every week, train them and have poop on the shelves. Also those are SHOPS, so the main work cleaning and re-stocking the shelves happens in night shifts, daytime shift is small and they are basicly wankers.
Overall even if 1 out of 10 gets to have a job, it's still better than sitting on your ass at home doing nothing.
Also it gets them moving around, they work and don't fall into vegetative state. I know I did, when I was unemployed.
No way, dude. 10 weeks unpaid per person. That means for every 5 slaves, you can let one person go, that's one person less contributing taxes and NI, and 5 more people being supported by the government but who work for a corporation. Unless you mean there'd be a surplus of staff, which means you don't need them in the first place.
You're not thinking this through at all. Why did you sit on your arse on the dole for months then? Why didn't you go off down to Blanch' shopping centre and work for free? Oh, that's right. Slavery isn't for you. But now you're a student, suddenly it is.
Weird.
[/quote]
But you think it's such a good idea, why didn't you do it yourself?
But you think it's such a good idea, why didn't you do it yourself?
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
[/quote]
That would be true.... if they were working for free. They are getting UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS. They are being PAID. The government has every right to tell these freeloaders to go out and work for whoever the fuck they want people to work for. You live off a government system, don't be surprised when the government starts putting up requirements that show you are actually interested in finding a job.
If someone is using the system to find a job, this will help them find a job as it will keep them paid and also get them into the workforce to find potential openings. Why should the tax payers and government be responsible to make sure these freeloaders keep freeloading?
If someone is using the system to sit on their ass and play WoW all day, and refuse to go out and earn their support checks, they can fuck right off and starve.
There most definitely is room for everyone in American to work, there's no denying it. But you're ignoring the facts that most of those people do not want to work and want to sit around collecting free money for absolutely nothing. Why not make use of them in areas that can't seem to find workers?
You live off the government, don't be surprised when they want something in return for keeping your ass high.
Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
That would be true.... if they were working for free. They are getting UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS. They are being PAID. The government has every right to tell these freeloaders to go out and work for whoever the fuck they want people to work for. You live off a government system, don't be surprised when the government starts putting up requirements that show you are actually interested in finding a job.
If someone is using the system to find a job, this will help them find a job as it will keep them paid and also get them into the workforce to find potential openings. Why should the tax payers and government be responsible to make sure these freeloaders keep freeloading?
If someone is using the system to sit on their ass and play WoW all day, and refuse to go out and earn their support checks, they can fuck right off and starve.
There most definitely is room for everyone in American to work, there's no denying it. But you're ignoring the facts that most of those people do not want to work and want to sit around collecting free money for absolutely nothing. Why not make use of them in areas that can't seem to find workers?
You live off the government, don't be surprised when they want something in return for keeping your ass high.
If there's a chance of a job, why don't they get people to apply for interviews and pick the best candidates? Why does there need to be a free labour component? Or is it because there is no work, that's why there's no interviews? Where are all these interviews with no applicants? This staff shortage you're talking about flew well under the radar.
If there's a chance of a job, why don't they get people to apply for interviews and pick the best candidates? Why does there need to be a free labour component? Or is it because there is no work, that's why there's no interviews? Where are all these interviews with no applicants? This staff shortage you're talking about flew well under the radar.
[quote user=Scobiewan] Before everyone jumps on the "slavery is good" wagon, could someone please explain to me why a company would pay someone to work if they could get someone to work for free? While you're at it, please show me some industry that has job vacancies, but nobody to fill them. Other wise, you're full of shit. At least lith has an excuse, he's russian.
[/quote]
You pay someone to work because you need the already trained staff to teach the new guys /fill,run the company/shop. the company I work for in my "area" alone are opening up 4 new stores in the "area" with another 2 being planned on new/just been planned retail parks/areas. These new stores take already payed/experianced staff ( sometimes giving them a promotion, like in my case im getting senior sales training so I'le be able to apply for the new stores/ take someones place in an old store that transfers out) so really somewhere in the company there will be x amount of jobs that will require new people to fill. so yeah at the mo they have no-one/hardly anyone to fill the gaps that are worth it . All the kids in we have doing these schemes have the best shot of a job ..right now
standing around talking or hiding in the warehouse will not land you a job , you want a contract you work like crazy to SHOW you are worth paying money for.
You pay someone to work because you need the already trained staff to teach the new guys /fill,run the company/shop. the company I work for in my "area" alone are opening up 4 new stores in the "area" with another 2 being planned on new/just been planned retail parks/areas. These new stores take already payed/experianced staff ( sometimes giving them a promotion, like in my case im getting senior sales training so I'le be able to apply for the new stores/ take someones place in an old store that transfers out) so really somewhere in the company there will be x amount of jobs that will require new people to fill. so yeah at the mo they have no-one/hardly anyone to fill the gaps that are worth it . All the kids in we have doing these schemes have the best shot of a job ..right now
standing around talking or hiding in the warehouse will not land you a job , you want a contract you work like crazy to SHOW you are worth paying money for.
That would be true.... if they were working for free. They are getting UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS. They are being PAID. The government has every right to tell these freeloaders to go out and work for whoever the fuck they want people to work for. You live off a government system, don't be surprised when the government starts putting up requirements that show you are actually interested in finding a job.
If someone is using the system to find a job, this will help them find a job as it will keep them paid and also get them into the workforce to find potential openings.
If someone is using the system to sit on their ass and play WoW all day, and refuse to go out and earn their support checks, they can fuck right off and starve.
[/quote]
also winning^
That would be true.... if they were working for free. They are getting UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS. They are being PAID. The government has every right to tell these freeloaders to go out and work for whoever the fuck they want people to work for. You live off a government system, don't be surprised when the government starts putting up requirements that show you are actually interested in finding a job.
If someone is using the system to find a job, this will help them find a job as it will keep them paid and also get them into the workforce to find potential openings.
If someone is using the system to sit on their ass and play WoW all day, and refuse to go out and earn their support checks, they can fuck right off and starve.
also winning^
It's boring shit job. What interview ?
"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
Also i'll quote myself :
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer] I see the situation like this :
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ?
[/quote]
It's boring shit job. What interview ?
"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
Also i'll quote myself :
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ?
why aint they doing community work?
why aint they doing community work?
I believe the answer is : "No moar government !!!!!111"
I believe the answer is : "No moar government !!!!!111"
why aint they doing community work?
[/quote]
I know in Canada all of our City workers are unionized, unless the service is completely contracted out (which a Union rep will still be the boss). A simple job like cleaning the sidewalk or picking up trash can get the Union in a dizzle and lawyers sicked on the municipal government. It's nice that these fortunate street walkers who do get the city jobs cleaning sidewalks or picking up trash, because they get paid union rates (16.70 an hour) to literally do fuck all.
I agree though, community work would be a good place to put them. But then again, so would businesses that financially prop up a community.
why aint they doing community work?
I know in Canada all of our City workers are unionized, unless the service is completely contracted out (which a Union rep will still be the boss). A simple job like cleaning the sidewalk or picking up trash can get the Union in a dizzle and lawyers sicked on the municipal government. It's nice that these fortunate street walkers who do get the city jobs cleaning sidewalks or picking up trash, because they get paid union rates (16.70 an hour) to literally do fuck all.
I agree though, community work would be a good place to put them. But then again, so would businesses that financially prop up a community.
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer]
It's boring shit job. What interview ?
"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
[/quote]
So, what you're saying is, there's no training because it's a simple job that doesn't require training. Therefore, why not advertise the appointments? If there's jobs, people without jobs can apply and get them. Why do you want the government to subsidise industry?
I know you haven't thought it through, so I won't bother until you do. needless to say, you're talkin out your arse.
And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
Would you fuck.
It's boring shit job. What interview ?
"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
So, what you're saying is, there's no training because it's a simple job that doesn't require training. Therefore, why not advertise the appointments? If there's jobs, people without jobs can apply and get them. Why do you want the government to subsidise industry?
I know you haven't thought it through, so I won't bother until you do. needless to say, you're talkin out your arse.
And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
Would you fuck.
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer]"Can you do mindless repetative tasks, as if you really really care about them ?"
[/quote]
So, what you're saying is, there's no training because it's a simple job that doesn't require training. Therefore, why not advertise the appointments? If there's jobs, people without jobs can apply and get them. Why do you want the government to subsidise industry?
I know you haven't thought it through, so I won't bother until you do. needless to say, you're talkin out your arse.
And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
Would you fuck.
[/quote]
Again, this is all under the assumption that NO ON IS BEING PAID JACK SHIT. You're failing hard by ignoring this crucial point.
Slavery is only slavery when they are forced to do something against their will and deprives them of all human rights. They're being paid, and they're all doing this to keep their unemployment benefits so they can find jobs, eat, and pay bills. All of their rights are upheld. They can leave the job ANYTIME THEY WANT TO, they will just quit getting money for it.
A simple job is slavery to any lazy ass clown who wants to sit around all day. You're just playing a game of words.
Of all the socialists here, you are by far the clearly left of us all, as you seem to think that everyone should get everything handed to them, no questions asked.
Next you're going to say that you don't think Welfare should have drug testing, either, and that all junkies should live for free off your dollars.
So, what you're saying is, there's no training because it's a simple job that doesn't require training. Therefore, why not advertise the appointments? If there's jobs, people without jobs can apply and get them. Why do you want the government to subsidise industry?
I know you haven't thought it through, so I won't bother until you do. needless to say, you're talkin out your arse.
And red, you don't need training for your job, no more than five minutes. What you're suggesting is that business shouldn't pay to train their human resources, the government should pick up the tab. Please explain to me how it would take 10 weeks? Also, would you be arsed to work for free?
Would you fuck.
Again, this is all under the assumption that NO ON IS BEING PAID JACK SHIT. You're failing hard by ignoring this crucial point.
Slavery is only slavery when they are forced to do something against their will and deprives them of all human rights. They're being paid, and they're all doing this to keep their unemployment benefits so they can find jobs, eat, and pay bills. All of their rights are upheld. They can leave the job ANYTIME THEY WANT TO, they will just quit getting money for it.
A simple job is slavery to any lazy ass clown who wants to sit around all day. You're just playing a game of words.
Of all the socialists here, you are by far the clearly left of us all, as you seem to think that everyone should get everything handed to them, no questions asked.
Next you're going to say that you don't think Welfare should have drug testing, either, and that all junkies should live for free off your dollars.
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ?
[/quote]
Again, this is only coming from my country's perspective, but our "EI" Employment Insurance as we call it, has this exact program in place. Businesses register with the EI Office to show that they have spots open that are generally reserved for training, or they just can't find workers. EI will send them workers for a 6 week run, each worker is assessed and hired if they do a good job. It's pretty simple and works very well for people who are actually out to find jobs. They'll even do it for people who are not currently on Employment Insurance, simply because it is in everyone interest to get someone employed.
We also have a Welfare system, and it's loosely stringent (if that makes sense). It forces people on Welfare who are not physically disabled or have and reason to not be working to go out and hand out 30 seperate fully filled out resumes and applications to businesses. These businesses report the application, and at the end of the month, the government checks if these organizations wanted them and scheduled an interview. If someone get an interview and fails, it's still A-OKAY, welfare will work with you to get that job next month. But if you get an interview and don't show up, or didn't hand any resumes out, or did a completely half ass job, consider your free money done for.
Just so everyone knows, if your country does not use an Employment Insurance type system. EI is different than welfare in that every working person in Canada must pay into it if they want to recieve benefits upon being fired (you must be fired or laid off, you cannot quit your job under any circumstances including sexual harrassment if you want EI, that's up to a court to decide your rights, not you or EI). Upon being fired, EI will calculate how much weekly you get based on how many hours you worked, your pay grade, and previous files you've had. You have 10 months of money coming to you that you paid out of your pockets anyway, so it really is a good system for those in a rocky career. For those who are in a career they know they won't be leaving, they can sign a government form which allows them to not pay into EI.
Unemployment offices need to reduce unemployment somehow, so they aproach shops and ask them if they want to have people for free for a trial run, if there is a chance that the shop will employ some of them.
Now if some shops eventually DON'T employ ANY of slaves sent to them, then what is the point for unemployment office to send people to them ?
So I think that unemployment offices technicly should cooperate only with shops that eventually employ SOME of them slaves.
Amirite ?
Again, this is only coming from my country's perspective, but our "EI" Employment Insurance as we call it, has this exact program in place. Businesses register with the EI Office to show that they have spots open that are generally reserved for training, or they just can't find workers. EI will send them workers for a 6 week run, each worker is assessed and hired if they do a good job. It's pretty simple and works very well for people who are actually out to find jobs. They'll even do it for people who are not currently on Employment Insurance, simply because it is in everyone interest to get someone employed.
We also have a Welfare system, and it's loosely stringent (if that makes sense). It forces people on Welfare who are not physically disabled or have and reason to not be working to go out and hand out 30 seperate fully filled out resumes and applications to businesses. These businesses report the application, and at the end of the month, the government checks if these organizations wanted them and scheduled an interview. If someone get an interview and fails, it's still A-OKAY, welfare will work with you to get that job next month. But if you get an interview and don't show up, or didn't hand any resumes out, or did a completely half ass job, consider your free money done for.
Just so everyone knows, if your country does not use an Employment Insurance type system. EI is different than welfare in that every working person in Canada must pay into it if they want to recieve benefits upon being fired (you must be fired or laid off, you cannot quit your job under any circumstances including sexual harrassment if you want EI, that's up to a court to decide your rights, not you or EI). Upon being fired, EI will calculate how much weekly you get based on how many hours you worked, your pay grade, and previous files you've had. You have 10 months of money coming to you that you paid out of your pockets anyway, so it really is a good system for those in a rocky career. For those who are in a career they know they won't be leaving, they can sign a government form which allows them to not pay into EI.
[/quote]
So what you're saying is that business should get everything handed to them, no questions asked. They just call up the Ministry of Worker Drones and get someone delivered, without paying anything for them? So it's socialism for business, capitalism for people? You're a nice chap.
This is a recession. There's 10+% unemployment all over the place. Zero unemployment is generally classed as anything around or under 4%. If unemployment was at that and businesses had a shortage of people applying for jobs, that's a different story. But when there aren't any jobs, you want someone to stay on employment benefit for 10 weeks more than necessary(assuming there is a full-time job), then take on a job and pay tax(again, assuming there is actually a job), rather than take up employment now, therefore robbing the state of ten weeks of tax contributions and 10 weeks dole. You don't understand that, that's fine. You want the government to pay wages for businesses, and I'm the socialist?
Unemployment levels have risen, for the windowlickers, that means that many of those unemployed now had a job in the recent past. What you're saying is effectively that all the tax they paid into the system will now be transferred to the business sector that laid them off in the form of free labour. "But it's not free!!" you whinge. No, it's not free. The state pays for it. It's free to the business. All you morons moan about redistribution of wealth, but what is this only redistributing tax money to businesses in the form of free labour?
If somewhere has a job, give it to someone and let the employer pay the wages and knock another person of the unemployment register.
Get a grip.
This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.
So what you're saying is that business should get everything handed to them, no questions asked. They just call up the Ministry of Worker Drones and get someone delivered, without paying anything for them? So it's socialism for business, capitalism for people? You're a nice chap.
This is a recession. There's 10+% unemployment all over the place. Zero unemployment is generally classed as anything around or under 4%. If unemployment was at that and businesses had a shortage of people applying for jobs, that's a different story. But when there aren't any jobs, you want someone to stay on employment benefit for 10 weeks more than necessary(assuming there is a full-time job), then take on a job and pay tax(again, assuming there is actually a job), rather than take up employment now, therefore robbing the state of ten weeks of tax contributions and 10 weeks dole. You don't understand that, that's fine. You want the government to pay wages for businesses, and I'm the socialist?
Unemployment levels have risen, for the windowlickers, that means that many of those unemployed now had a job in the recent past. What you're saying is effectively that all the tax they paid into the system will now be transferred to the business sector that laid them off in the form of free labour. "But it's not free!!" you whinge. No, it's not free. The state pays for it. It's free to the business. All you morons moan about redistribution of wealth, but what is this only redistributing tax money to businesses in the form of free labour?
If somewhere has a job, give it to someone and let the employer pay the wages and knock another person of the unemployment register.
Get a grip.
This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.
Bribery...
Bribery...
[/quote]
So what you're saying is that business should get everything handed to them, no questions asked. They just call up the Ministry of Worker Drones and get someone delivered, without paying anything for them? So it's socialism for business, capitalism for people? You're a nice chap.
This is a recession. There's 10+% unemployment all over the place. Zero unemployment is generally classed as anything around or under 4%. If unemployment was at that and businesses had a shortage of people applying for jobs, that's a different story. But when there aren't any jobs, you want someone to stay on employment benefit for 10 weeks more than necessary(assuming there is a full-time job), then take on a job and pay tax(again, assuming there is actually a job), rather than take up employment now, therefore robbing the state of ten weeks of tax contributions and 10 weeks dole. You don't understand that, that's fine. You want the government to pay wages for businesses, and I'm the socialist?
Unemployment levels have risen, for the windowlickers, that means that many of those unemployed now had a job in the recent past. What you're saying is effectively that all the tax they paid into the system will now be transferred to the business sector that laid them off in the form of free labour. "But it's not free!!" you whinge. No, it's not free. The state pays for it. It's free to the business. All you morons moan about redistribution of wealth, but what is this only redistributing tax money to businesses in the form of free labour?
If somewhere has a job, give it to someone and let the employer pay the wages and knock another person of the unemployment register.
Get a grip.
This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.
[/quote]
Keep your palm on your face for yourself, scobie.
This isn't about the business, this thread has always been about the people.
Your original argument was that people were being forced into slavery by the state. I completely blew that out of the water. I also pointed out that necessary businesses get free labour in the form of paid workers to keep up their economical end of the deal and prevent them for going under and providing more jobs. If a business can't get people apply or stay there, what do you expect them to do, whither away and die (We are in a Recession, you know?)? Especially if this is a business in a key market for growth? If people were able to get jobs, don't you think they woud have gotten a job instead of resorting to a job fishing system like this? Exactly.
Now you're starting on a completely different argument and then claiming everyone is stupid for not seeing it your way.
If we were arguing about that, Scobie, maybe we would have been talking about that. But we weren't.
Maybe, just maybe, all of TAN aren't the morons, maybe you on your lonesome are the moron?
So what you're saying is that business should get everything handed to them, no questions asked. They just call up the Ministry of Worker Drones and get someone delivered, without paying anything for them? So it's socialism for business, capitalism for people? You're a nice chap.
This is a recession. There's 10+% unemployment all over the place. Zero unemployment is generally classed as anything around or under 4%. If unemployment was at that and businesses had a shortage of people applying for jobs, that's a different story. But when there aren't any jobs, you want someone to stay on employment benefit for 10 weeks more than necessary(assuming there is a full-time job), then take on a job and pay tax(again, assuming there is actually a job), rather than take up employment now, therefore robbing the state of ten weeks of tax contributions and 10 weeks dole. You don't understand that, that's fine. You want the government to pay wages for businesses, and I'm the socialist?
Unemployment levels have risen, for the windowlickers, that means that many of those unemployed now had a job in the recent past. What you're saying is effectively that all the tax they paid into the system will now be transferred to the business sector that laid them off in the form of free labour. "But it's not free!!" you whinge. No, it's not free. The state pays for it. It's free to the business. All you morons moan about redistribution of wealth, but what is this only redistributing tax money to businesses in the form of free labour?
If somewhere has a job, give it to someone and let the employer pay the wages and knock another person of the unemployment register.
Get a grip.
This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.
Keep your palm on your face for yourself, scobie.
This isn't about the business, this thread has always been about the people.
Your original argument was that people were being forced into slavery by the state. I completely blew that out of the water. I also pointed out that necessary businesses get free labour in the form of paid workers to keep up their economical end of the deal and prevent them for going under and providing more jobs. If a business can't get people apply or stay there, what do you expect them to do, whither away and die (We are in a Recession, you know?)? Especially if this is a business in a key market for growth? If people were able to get jobs, don't you think they woud have gotten a job instead of resorting to a job fishing system like this? Exactly.
Now you're starting on a completely different argument and then claiming everyone is stupid for not seeing it your way.
If we were arguing about that, Scobie, maybe we would have been talking about that. But we weren't.
Maybe, just maybe, all of TAN aren't the morons, maybe you on your lonesome are the moron?
Would you fuck.[/quote]
Infact you do need training for "my job" , everyone's training is redone/reassesed on a 6 month rota. I'l freely admit my job is unskilled, but still requires a fair amount of training. And no im not suggesting that companys shouldnt pay to train thier workers , as ive stated the company i work for does it on a6 month rota , I have no idea how much it would cost for the company but i dont think it would be cheap.
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
Would you fuck.
Infact you do need training for "my job" , everyone's training is redone/reassesed on a 6 month rota. I'l freely admit my job is unskilled, but still requires a fair amount of training. And no im not suggesting that companys shouldnt pay to train thier workers , as ive stated the company i work for does it on a6 month rota , I have no idea how much it would cost for the company but i dont think it would be cheap.
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
Infact you do need training for "my job" , everyone's training is redone/reassesed on a 6 month rota. I'l freely admit my job is unskilled, but still requires a fair amount of training. And no im not suggesting that companys shouldnt pay to train thier workers , as ive stated the company i work for does it on a6 month rota , I have no idea how much it would cost for the company but i dont think it would be cheap.
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
[/quote]
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
Us real world chaps know that companies choose workers based on who is best for the job, not whether they're looking for a job or not. With that said, I could close up my business, officially claim unemployment, walk up to any Fortune 500 trading company and tell them to employ me because I need a job, and they will, regardless of my skills, and only because I need a job. This happens EVERY DAY in america, and there is no such thing as employment contention, job competition, minimal required education, etc according to Scobie.
Yeeeeahhh......
Infact you do need training for "my job" , everyone's training is redone/reassesed on a 6 month rota. I'l freely admit my job is unskilled, but still requires a fair amount of training. And no im not suggesting that companys shouldnt pay to train thier workers , as ive stated the company i work for does it on a6 month rota , I have no idea how much it would cost for the company but i dont think it would be cheap.
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
Us real world chaps know that companies choose workers based on who is best for the job, not whether they're looking for a job or not. With that said, I could close up my business, officially claim unemployment, walk up to any Fortune 500 trading company and tell them to employ me because I need a job, and they will, regardless of my skills, and only because I need a job. This happens EVERY DAY in america, and there is no such thing as employment contention, job competition, minimal required education, etc according to Scobie.
Yeeeeahhh......
[/quote]
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
Us real world chaps know that companies choose workers based on who is best for the job, not whether they're looking for a job or not. With that said, I could close up my business, officially claim unemployment, walk up to any Fortune 500 trading company and tell them to employ me because I need a job, and they will, regardless of my skills, and only because I need a job. This happens EVERY DAY in america, and there is no such thing as employment contention, job competition, minimal required education, etc according to Scobie.
Yeeeeahhh......
[/quote]
^ winning.
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
Us real world chaps know that companies choose workers based on who is best for the job, not whether they're looking for a job or not. With that said, I could close up my business, officially claim unemployment, walk up to any Fortune 500 trading company and tell them to employ me because I need a job, and they will, regardless of my skills, and only because I need a job. This happens EVERY DAY in america, and there is no such thing as employment contention, job competition, minimal required education, etc according to Scobie.
Yeeeeahhh......
^ winning.
[/quote]
I know English isn't your first language, so I'm happy to help.
slavery [ˈsleɪvərɪ]
Please "Keep your palm on your face for yourself".
[quote user=Reddwarfnut]
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
[/quote]
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
The only way this is any way ethical is maybe trade apprenticeships or if there's people who simply refuse to work but are entitled to dole.
There's a scheme here for long term unemployed where you go to the state agency responsible and once you're approved for the scheme, you work 3 days a week and depending on the scheme in your area, you could be painting a school, receptionist at a museum or working in an old folks home etc. You only get about 50 quid extra, which is all covered by the state. You don't work for business, you work for your local community gaining actual experience, usually doing something you enjoy. I have no problem with that, and the schemes are oversubscribed everywhere. You can dress it up all you want, but once you've stacked one shelf, if you don't get the hang of it maybe you shouldn't be on the dole, you should be in an assisted living facility.
As an aside, dole isn't a living wage, it's to let you scrape along the bottom until you find work. Add up how much money you spend just so you can get to and from work, then subtract it from how much money you get on the dole. I'm thinking that after 10 weeks you'd be well in debt. I remember doing some bs course after college, I got a grant of around 100 quid a week, but the bus fare to and from the course was 20 quid alone, add rent and bills and I was fucked. Cheesy beans on toast is nice and alll, but after a few months it takes its toll.
Trickle up economics ftw.
I know English isn't your first language, so I'm happy to help.
slavery [ˈsleɪvərɪ]
Please "Keep your palm on your face for yourself".
This kids are given a chance to prove their worth. If they fail to get a job its because of the current status of the company/shop or more likely ....the kid was a wanker pissed about on his/her phone and generally showed no interest in trying to get a job. If i had ten kids , 1 would run around like crazy and work hard and other 9 just fucked around , got in the way and simply refused to do any work , who the fuck do you think I would hire?"
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
The only way this is any way ethical is maybe trade apprenticeships or if there's people who simply refuse to work but are entitled to dole.
There's a scheme here for long term unemployed where you go to the state agency responsible and once you're approved for the scheme, you work 3 days a week and depending on the scheme in your area, you could be painting a school, receptionist at a museum or working in an old folks home etc. You only get about 50 quid extra, which is all covered by the state. You don't work for business, you work for your local community gaining actual experience, usually doing something you enjoy. I have no problem with that, and the schemes are oversubscribed everywhere. You can dress it up all you want, but once you've stacked one shelf, if you don't get the hang of it maybe you shouldn't be on the dole, you should be in an assisted living facility.
As an aside, dole isn't a living wage, it's to let you scrape along the bottom until you find work. Add up how much money you spend just so you can get to and from work, then subtract it from how much money you get on the dole. I'm thinking that after 10 weeks you'd be well in debt. I remember doing some bs course after college, I got a grant of around 100 quid a week, but the bus fare to and from the course was 20 quid alone, add rent and bills and I was fucked. Cheesy beans on toast is nice and alll, but after a few months it takes its toll.
Trickle up economics ftw.
I know English isn't your first language, so I'm happy to help.
slavery [ˈsleɪvərɪ]
Please "Keep your palm on your face for yourself".
[/quote]
Actually, i'll keep my palm on YOUR face.
"work done in harsh conditions for low pay "
Please name these so-called harsh conditions and slightly higher than minimum wage earnings, when these people have had nothing taken from them (in fact, they have a few MORE rights given to them than the average joe), and only opportunity given. Harsh Conditions, nope. Low Pay, nope. Forced into work? Nope, they can quit and have no money.
Next please.
Now, instead of hovering over an argument I've already completely destroyed, please move on to the more recent arguments which continue to thrash your theories. Even by dictionary definition you prove yourself wrong.
[QUOTE user=ScobieCommie]
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
The only way this is any way ethical is maybe trade apprenticeships or if there's people who simply refuse to work but are entitled to dole.
There's a scheme here for long term unemployed where you go to the state agency responsible and once you're approved for the scheme, you work 3 days a week and depending on the scheme in your area, you could be painting a school, receptionist at a museum or working in an old folks home etc. You only get about 50 quid extra, which is all covered by the state. You don't work for business, you work for your local community gaining actual experience, usually doing something you enjoy. I have no problem with that, and the schemes are oversubscribed everywhere. You can dress it up all you want, but once you've stacked one shelf, if you don't get the hang of it maybe you shouldn't be on the dole, you should be in an assisted living facility.
As an aside, dole isn't a living wage, it's to let you scrape along the bottom until you find work. Add up how much money you spend just so you can get to and from work, then subtract it from how much money you get on the dole. I'm thinking that after 10 weeks you'd be well in debt. I remember doing some bs course after college, I got a grant of around 100 quid a week, but the bus fare to and from the course was 20 quid alone, add rent and bills and I was fucked. Cheesy beans on toast is nice and alll, but after a few months it takes its toll.
Trickle up economics ftw.
[/QUOTE]
Has it not been made clear that these businesses are getting these workers because no one is fucking applying, ie. THEY CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AND FIND WORKERS.
God you are so dense.
You're trying to swing this like companies are just looking to a labour pool for workers when someone gets fired or quit. A company woudl be fucking STUPID to not advertise for a position and keep output nominal rather than wait for a government labour pool to show up and save the day. Why would they pass up paid workers that are motivated to keep their jobs, and instead take free labour from unemployment that don't care about shit? Does that even make sense to you? A business' last resort would be to take free work from unemployment if they care at all about efficiency or output.
This whole argument was on the basis that a company has exhausted it's means of finding workers to fill the positions, and the government steps in and says "Hey, we see you're not filling your positions, would you like some volunteers?", and, again, if these people don't want to go to work for their unemployment, they lose their fucking money.
I know English isn't your first language, so I'm happy to help.
slavery [ˈsleɪvərɪ]
Please "Keep your palm on your face for yourself".
Actually, i'll keep my palm on YOUR face.
"work done in harsh conditions for low pay "
Please name these so-called harsh conditions and slightly higher than minimum wage earnings, when these people have had nothing taken from them (in fact, they have a few MORE rights given to them than the average joe), and only opportunity given. Harsh Conditions, nope. Low Pay, nope. Forced into work? Nope, they can quit and have no money.
Next please.
Now, instead of hovering over an argument I've already completely destroyed, please move on to the more recent arguments which continue to thrash your theories. Even by dictionary definition you prove yourself wrong.
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
The only way this is any way ethical is maybe trade apprenticeships or if there's people who simply refuse to work but are entitled to dole.
There's a scheme here for long term unemployed where you go to the state agency responsible and once you're approved for the scheme, you work 3 days a week and depending on the scheme in your area, you could be painting a school, receptionist at a museum or working in an old folks home etc. You only get about 50 quid extra, which is all covered by the state. You don't work for business, you work for your local community gaining actual experience, usually doing something you enjoy. I have no problem with that, and the schemes are oversubscribed everywhere. You can dress it up all you want, but once you've stacked one shelf, if you don't get the hang of it maybe you shouldn't be on the dole, you should be in an assisted living facility.
As an aside, dole isn't a living wage, it's to let you scrape along the bottom until you find work. Add up how much money you spend just so you can get to and from work, then subtract it from how much money you get on the dole. I'm thinking that after 10 weeks you'd be well in debt. I remember doing some bs course after college, I got a grant of around 100 quid a week, but the bus fare to and from the course was 20 quid alone, add rent and bills and I was fucked. Cheesy beans on toast is nice and alll, but after a few months it takes its toll.
Trickle up economics ftw.
Has it not been made clear that these businesses are getting these workers because no one is fucking applying, ie. THEY CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AND FIND WORKERS.
God you are so dense.
You're trying to swing this like companies are just looking to a labour pool for workers when someone gets fired or quit. A company woudl be fucking STUPID to not advertise for a position and keep output nominal rather than wait for a government labour pool to show up and save the day. Why would they pass up paid workers that are motivated to keep their jobs, and instead take free labour from unemployment that don't care about shit? Does that even make sense to you? A business' last resort would be to take free work from unemployment if they care at all about efficiency or output.
This whole argument was on the basis that a company has exhausted it's means of finding workers to fill the positions, and the government steps in and says "Hey, we see you're not filling your positions, would you like some volunteers?", and, again, if these people don't want to go to work for their unemployment, they lose their fucking money.
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
[/quote]
This'll be easy. Where did I say people have a right to work where they want? I'm sure I'd remember it. You're confusing what you think I said with what I actually said.
This kind of thinking is a result of years of worker's right erosion. There was a time where you had a thing called a "level entry job". That's what you got when you left school, or while you were still in school for the more industrious of us. You also had more job security back then, but that's another issue. These jobs were acquired by going to what's still called an "interview". It was the way in which you selected the best candidates and chose the one most suited to your needs. These jobs were usually menial, unskilled jobs because you wouldn't be hiring people without experience to do skilled work. You may want to have 10 weeks of labour out of some kid at no cost to yourself, but that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make the tested interview process invalid. When I worked for Bass, I interviewed people every single Wednesday and called the successful applicants on Thursday morning. Granted, some were fired by Friday, but them's the breaks. If you can't handle that, there's courses you can take that will improve your human resource management skills. If you find you can't hold onto good staff, you're doing something wrong. If you expect the taxpayers to pay your wage bill, you shouldn't be in business.
According to Scobie, you should hire them all based on the pre-requisite skill called "Unemployed". No worries whether they'll actually do anything useful for your company or affect your bottom line in any negative or positive ways, they're just unemployed and most likely unskilled, EMPLOY THEM!
This'll be easy. Where did I say people have a right to work where they want? I'm sure I'd remember it. You're confusing what you think I said with what I actually said.
This kind of thinking is a result of years of worker's right erosion. There was a time where you had a thing called a "level entry job". That's what you got when you left school, or while you were still in school for the more industrious of us. You also had more job security back then, but that's another issue. These jobs were acquired by going to what's still called an "interview". It was the way in which you selected the best candidates and chose the one most suited to your needs. These jobs were usually menial, unskilled jobs because you wouldn't be hiring people without experience to do skilled work. You may want to have 10 weeks of labour out of some kid at no cost to yourself, but that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make the tested interview process invalid. When I worked for Bass, I interviewed people every single Wednesday and called the successful applicants on Thursday morning. Granted, some were fired by Friday, but them's the breaks. If you can't handle that, there's courses you can take that will improve your human resource management skills. If you find you can't hold onto good staff, you're doing something wrong. If you expect the taxpayers to pay your wage bill, you shouldn't be in business.
Has it not been made clear that these businesses are getting these workers because no one is fucking applying, ie. THEY CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AND FIND WORKERS.
[/quote]
Where? Where has this happened? Show me proof
Has it not been made clear that these businesses are getting these workers because no one is fucking applying, ie. THEY CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AND FIND WORKERS.
Where? Where has this happened? Show me proof
[/quote]
This'll be easy. Where did I say people have a right to work where they want? I'm sure I'd remember it. You're confusing what you think I said with what I actually said.
This kind of thinking is a result of years of worker's right erosion. There was a time where you had a thing called a "level entry job". That's what you got when you left school, or while you were still in school for the more industrious of us. You also had more job security back then, but that's another issue. These jobs were acquired by going to what's still called an "interview". It was the way in which you selected the best candidates and chose the one most suited to your needs. These jobs were usually menial, unskilled jobs because you wouldn't be hiring people without experience to do skilled work. You may want to have 10 weeks of labour out of some kid at no cost to yourself, but that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make the tested interview process invalid. When I worked for Bass, I interviewed people every single Wednesday and called the successful applicants on Thursday morning. Granted, some were fired by Friday, but them's the breaks. If you can't handle that, there's courses you can take that will improve your human resource management skills. If you find you can't hold onto good staff, you're doing something wrong. If you expect the taxpayers to pay your wage bill, you shouldn't be in business.
[/quote]
Thank you for proving every single thing I just posted before you.
This proves that your argument is based on assumptions that employers never put out employment ads or took resumes, or hired potential candidates and fired them the following friday BEFORE they took these steps.
Your whole assumption is that a business loses a worker and goes to big govamint, which is a completely wrong assumption.
These services are available to get people back to work and employed and keep businesses operating, not to simply provide free labour that a business can abuse.
If you didn't know how your country works with employment, businesses get huge tax rebates and incentives to keep people employed and keep employing more people. It would just be completely stupid for a "labour pool" to be used anytime a position opens.
And on that point, do you think a company that willingly uses government labour as a free abusable service would have a very good public image during a recession?
These services are provided to businesses that need and cannot find the workers through their own means. That is all.
This'll be easy. Where did I say people have a right to work where they want? I'm sure I'd remember it. You're confusing what you think I said with what I actually said.
This kind of thinking is a result of years of worker's right erosion. There was a time where you had a thing called a "level entry job". That's what you got when you left school, or while you were still in school for the more industrious of us. You also had more job security back then, but that's another issue. These jobs were acquired by going to what's still called an "interview". It was the way in which you selected the best candidates and chose the one most suited to your needs. These jobs were usually menial, unskilled jobs because you wouldn't be hiring people without experience to do skilled work. You may want to have 10 weeks of labour out of some kid at no cost to yourself, but that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make the tested interview process invalid. When I worked for Bass, I interviewed people every single Wednesday and called the successful applicants on Thursday morning. Granted, some were fired by Friday, but them's the breaks. If you can't handle that, there's courses you can take that will improve your human resource management skills. If you find you can't hold onto good staff, you're doing something wrong. If you expect the taxpayers to pay your wage bill, you shouldn't be in business.
Thank you for proving every single thing I just posted before you.
This proves that your argument is based on assumptions that employers never put out employment ads or took resumes, or hired potential candidates and fired them the following friday BEFORE they took these steps.
Your whole assumption is that a business loses a worker and goes to big govamint, which is a completely wrong assumption.
These services are available to get people back to work and employed and keep businesses operating, not to simply provide free labour that a business can abuse.
If you didn't know how your country works with employment, businesses get huge tax rebates and incentives to keep people employed and keep employing more people. It would just be completely stupid for a "labour pool" to be used anytime a position opens.
And on that point, do you think a company that willingly uses government labour as a free abusable service would have a very good public image during a recession?
These services are provided to businesses that need and cannot find the workers through their own means. That is all.
[/quote]
Then can you care to explain why these companies don't have people employed during a recession where it is important to keep output balanced with sales as high as possible?
I'll slip into your line of thought for a second (and probably head over to the psychiatrist immediately afterwards). A recession hits, a company loses income. A company lets go of workers to make up for fallen sales/income. Naturally, with a reduced worker load, output is decreased to match the workforce. In this scenario, the business doens't want to pay workers but keep output nominal. They go to the government and tell them they need workers. Now, they laid off their workforce and reduced output, the government will see the actual need for workers and laugh in their faces, meanwhile, giving workers to businesses that actually need the use of provided labour to stay afloat.
If the business needs workers and can afford it (meaning, they CAN afford nominal output) then the same business can afford paid workers and the government will put the resources in places that actually need it, not in the business, and their request will be denied.
If a business needs workers to simply stay functional, and they've put out ads and looked for workers but received nothing, it is definitely in the government's best interest to keep a business alive to ensure employment to as many people as possible.
Again, your assuming companies are just going to a labour pool because they are too lazy to advertise for employment (and we've already been over the points of an employed workforce that has to fight for a job against a provided workforce that gets the money regardless how hard they work). Your assumption is wildly wrong.
Then can you care to explain why these companies don't have people employed during a recession where it is important to keep output balanced with sales as high as possible?
I'll slip into your line of thought for a second (and probably head over to the psychiatrist immediately afterwards). A recession hits, a company loses income. A company lets go of workers to make up for fallen sales/income. Naturally, with a reduced worker load, output is decreased to match the workforce. In this scenario, the business doens't want to pay workers but keep output nominal. They go to the government and tell them they need workers. Now, they laid off their workforce and reduced output, the government will see the actual need for workers and laugh in their faces, meanwhile, giving workers to businesses that actually need the use of provided labour to stay afloat.
If the business needs workers and can afford it (meaning, they CAN afford nominal output) then the same business can afford paid workers and the government will put the resources in places that actually need it, not in the business, and their request will be denied.
If a business needs workers to simply stay functional, and they've put out ads and looked for workers but received nothing, it is definitely in the government's best interest to keep a business alive to ensure employment to as many people as possible.
Again, your assuming companies are just going to a labour pool because they are too lazy to advertise for employment (and we've already been over the points of an employed workforce that has to fight for a job against a provided workforce that gets the money regardless how hard they work). Your assumption is wildly wrong.
September 2011
ILO Unemployed: 2.622 mn (2.566 mn)
Inactive - wants a job: 2.255 mn (2.288 mn)
Total wanting work (4.877 mn) (4.854 mn)
Vacancies 0.464 mn (0.464 mn) (revised)
People per vacancy 10.51 (10.46)
September 2011
ILO Unemployed: 2.622 mn (2.566 mn)
Inactive - wants a job: 2.255 mn (2.288 mn)
Total wanting work (4.877 mn) (4.854 mn)
Vacancies 0.464 mn (0.464 mn) (revised)
People per vacancy 10.51 (10.46)
September 2011
ILO Unemployed: 2.622 mn (2.566 mn)
Inactive - wants a job: 2.255 mn (2.288 mn)
Total wanting work (4.877 mn) (4.854 mn)
Vacancies 0.464 mn (0.464 mn) (revised)
People per vacancy 10.51 (10.46)
[/quote]
How much do you want to bet that most of that 4.8m are all people with pre-grad education, shotty work record, and/or criminal records that no company would even want to risk taking on? How many of these are people saying they want jobs who have comfortably sat on their ass all their lives and never worked? How many of these people are just straight up lying? How many are with drug problems that could not function in a working environment? How many of these are people involved in gangs or crimes that they cannot leave or will not leave? How many of these are homeless people that simply can't get a job because they have no worth to even gas pumping businesses? There are over 200,000 (300,000 total, the other 100k being people with jobs with no home) people in Britain alone that are homeless and unwilling to recieve jobs (or can't, because, they're, well.... homeless and most likely impaired physically or mentally).
Yeah, i'd be willing to bet the actual amount of hirable candidates in that whole group is less than the amount of available jobs. A company is not forced to hire someone if they are a detriment rather than an asset coming in.
September 2011
ILO Unemployed: 2.622 mn (2.566 mn)
Inactive - wants a job: 2.255 mn (2.288 mn)
Total wanting work (4.877 mn) (4.854 mn)
Vacancies 0.464 mn (0.464 mn) (revised)
People per vacancy 10.51 (10.46)
How much do you want to bet that most of that 4.8m are all people with pre-grad education, shotty work record, and/or criminal records that no company would even want to risk taking on? How many of these are people saying they want jobs who have comfortably sat on their ass all their lives and never worked? How many of these people are just straight up lying? How many are with drug problems that could not function in a working environment? How many of these are people involved in gangs or crimes that they cannot leave or will not leave? How many of these are homeless people that simply can't get a job because they have no worth to even gas pumping businesses? There are over 200,000 (300,000 total, the other 100k being people with jobs with no home) people in Britain alone that are homeless and unwilling to recieve jobs (or can't, because, they're, well.... homeless and most likely impaired physically or mentally).
Yeah, i'd be willing to bet the actual amount of hirable candidates in that whole group is less than the amount of available jobs. A company is not forced to hire someone if they are a detriment rather than an asset coming in.
The only shortage of labour is in specialised/skilled areas, which is well documented. The government would be far smarter to train people for those jobs, instead they've made it harder to go to college.
The only shortage of labour is in specialised/skilled areas, which is well documented. The government would be far smarter to train people for those jobs, instead they've made it harder to go to college.
The only shortage of labour is in specialised/skilled areas, which is well documented. The government would be far smarter to train people for those jobs, instead they've made it harder to go to college.
[/quote]
Unless you can prove to me that there is undeniably more jobs available than people looking for them, ie. numbers, then we're at a stalemate. A quote from ONS of all places, without a breakdown of each individual and whether they were flat out lying would be incredibly useful to your argument. But there isn't one, so you can't argue shit on that point. I can argue human laziness, honesty, and motivation, to that, there is no numbers or statistics necessary. I can argue that your country is so full of lazy bastards that the government has to step in and fill employment coffers just to keep shit running, you can't argue anything on the contrary.
Also, I'd like you to prove to me that every single person on that list is actually looking for work and not just saying it to sound nice.
I'd also like you to prove to me that these 4.8m are on the street pounding pavement every day looking for jobs.
They aren't, and you can't prove that they are.
Your whole argument is based on "what if's", mine is based on "what is".
Argument is over.
The only shortage of labour is in specialised/skilled areas, which is well documented. The government would be far smarter to train people for those jobs, instead they've made it harder to go to college.
Unless you can prove to me that there is undeniably more jobs available than people looking for them, ie. numbers, then we're at a stalemate. A quote from ONS of all places, without a breakdown of each individual and whether they were flat out lying would be incredibly useful to your argument. But there isn't one, so you can't argue shit on that point. I can argue human laziness, honesty, and motivation, to that, there is no numbers or statistics necessary. I can argue that your country is so full of lazy bastards that the government has to step in and fill employment coffers just to keep shit running, you can't argue anything on the contrary.
Also, I'd like you to prove to me that every single person on that list is actually looking for work and not just saying it to sound nice.
I'd also like you to prove to me that these 4.8m are on the street pounding pavement every day looking for jobs.
They aren't, and you can't prove that they are.
Your whole argument is based on "what if's", mine is based on "what is".
Argument is over.
[/quote]
So, please Mr. big, explain to all of TAN how these people are going about finding jobs or creating them? that's right, absolutely nothing. They are just complaining that they don't have jobs, meanwhile no one is looking for jobs and the governmnet has to step in and keep shit running. If people were actually interested, they would be employed.
It's not slave labour big, I already crushed Scobie's argument on that one. They are getting paid and they have just as many rights, if not more, than the employed workers. They are doing it to keep getting their benefits while they "look for jobs". These people who are in these labour pools... yeah they're the actual ones out looking for ways to get employed and not pissing and moaning about being unemployed and slave camps taking their opportunities away
If these people were actually interested in working, these jobs would be filled and the government wouldn't have had to step in for anything.
For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice.
So, please Mr. big, explain to all of TAN how these people are going about finding jobs or creating them? that's right, absolutely nothing. They are just complaining that they don't have jobs, meanwhile no one is looking for jobs and the governmnet has to step in and keep shit running. If people were actually interested, they would be employed.
It's not slave labour big, I already crushed Scobie's argument on that one. They are getting paid and they have just as many rights, if not more, than the employed workers. They are doing it to keep getting their benefits while they "look for jobs". These people who are in these labour pools... yeah they're the actual ones out looking for ways to get employed and not pissing and moaning about being unemployed and slave camps taking their opportunities away
If these people were actually interested in working, these jobs would be filled and the government wouldn't have had to step in for anything.
For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice.
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
[/quote]
They're already being paid through support you blind, fat, little girl. They ARE being paid for the work. Try reading.
It's almost like you're arguing what your country has been doing for over 50 years to keep employment and business up is wrong. This happens every day in the US, it's called Job Placement. Welfare and SSI use these systems. If you refuse the work, they cut you off. Big Surprise? Or is it just that you like free money and don't think you have to work to earn it?
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
They're already being paid through support you blind, fat, little girl. They ARE being paid for the work. Try reading.
It's almost like you're arguing what your country has been doing for over 50 years to keep employment and business up is wrong. This happens every day in the US, it's called Job Placement. Welfare and SSI use these systems. If you refuse the work, they cut you off. Big Surprise? Or is it just that you like free money and don't think you have to work to earn it?
[quote user=mmateri]
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
[/quote]
This is a sad, sad day. Mmat just pwnt you too, btw.
people don't want jobs for any reason except the money, its not a fucking hobby for fuck sake
This is a sad, sad day. Mmat just pwnt you too, btw.
[/quote]
That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system and make the money they need to, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?
If you bothered to read, all of these people who are in these employment programs, are getting the opportunity to find work. They have a reason to be there. Everyone else is just crying that they don't have a job, meanwhile, they are doing nothing about it. I would rather the opportunity be given to someone who is actually looking for employment. Just like in the US, there are plenty of jobs available (and I'd like anyone to prove me otherwise, through a statistical breakdown, which they can't), the problem is there are too many fat lazy bastards that want to sit on their asses writing diatribes of government employment conspiracy all day rather than going out and finding a job. They dont' want to work.
When there is a lack of people actually wanting to work, and companies are looking for workers, what exactly do you think needs to be done?
That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system and make the money they need to, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?
If you bothered to read, all of these people who are in these employment programs, are getting the opportunity to find work. They have a reason to be there. Everyone else is just crying that they don't have a job, meanwhile, they are doing nothing about it. I would rather the opportunity be given to someone who is actually looking for employment. Just like in the US, there are plenty of jobs available (and I'd like anyone to prove me otherwise, through a statistical breakdown, which they can't), the problem is there are too many fat lazy bastards that want to sit on their asses writing diatribes of government employment conspiracy all day rather than going out and finding a job. They dont' want to work.
When there is a lack of people actually wanting to work, and companies are looking for workers, what exactly do you think needs to be done?
So, please Mr. big, explain to all of TAN how these people are going about finding jobs or creating them? that's right, absolutely nothing. They are just complaining that they don't have jobs, meanwhile no one is looking for jobs and the governmnet has to step in and keep shit running. If people were actually interested, they would be employed.
For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice.
[/quote]
point is, aint no jobs. can't get a job if aint no job.
So, please Mr. big, explain to all of TAN how these people are going about finding jobs or creating them? that's right, absolutely nothing. They are just complaining that they don't have jobs, meanwhile no one is looking for jobs and the governmnet has to step in and keep shit running. If people were actually interested, they would be employed.
For the rest, either create work, or live on welfare all your life, you have a choice.
point is, aint no jobs. can't get a job if aint no job.
That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?
[/quote]
i think i explained that with benefit money you starve anyways, i had a friend on welfare and he got 510/month, good luck finding a one bedroom apt for under 700
That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?
i think i explained that with benefit money you starve anyways, i had a friend on welfare and he got 510/month, good luck finding a one bedroom apt for under 700
point is, aint no jobs. can't get a job if aint no job.
[/quote]
Prove that to me. You sound like another whiney little bitch that doesn't want a low paying job because that's all that is available. Sorry, no empathy for you.
[quote user=mmateri] [quote user=proofinlife]That doesn't matter one bit. You guys are valuing the work they are doing against the money they are making, as if THEY ARE EMPLOYED. They are not employed. They have the choice to go to work and possibly find an opportunity that gets them out of the system, or they can have absolutely nothing. Would you rather have money or starve?[/quote]
i think i explained that with benefit money you starve anyways, i had a friend on welfare and he got 510/month, good luck finding a one bedroom apt for under 700
[/quote]
There is a thing called room mates, bunking, whatever you want to call it. If you're living off benefits by yourself you're either a fucking genius with a secret to lavish welfare living or you're completely fucking stupid. Also, your friend on benefits should try shopping in apartments that actually cater to assisted living people, not employed people with money. So don't tell me it can't be survived, because it fucking can. If he has to ring out an existence in a cockroach infested apartment that is no bigger than my fucking bathroom, then that's what's got to be done. No use in bitching that the govmints takin' yer jerbs and that's why you're on welfare. Get your shit together and either find a job or make one. Make one if you can't find one. If you can't make one, you're fucking USELESS.
510 a month is more than a lot of part time workers get, they manage just fine. Don't forget that.
point is, aint no jobs. can't get a job if aint no job.
Prove that to me. You sound like another whiney little bitch that doesn't want a low paying job because that's all that is available. Sorry, no empathy for you.
i think i explained that with benefit money you starve anyways, i had a friend on welfare and he got 510/month, good luck finding a one bedroom apt for under 700
There is a thing called room mates, bunking, whatever you want to call it. If you're living off benefits by yourself you're either a fucking genius with a secret to lavish welfare living or you're completely fucking stupid. Also, your friend on benefits should try shopping in apartments that actually cater to assisted living people, not employed people with money. So don't tell me it can't be survived, because it fucking can. If he has to ring out an existence in a cockroach infested apartment that is no bigger than my fucking bathroom, then that's what's got to be done. No use in bitching that the govmints takin' yer jerbs and that's why you're on welfare. Get your shit together and either find a job or make one. Make one if you can't find one. If you can't make one, you're fucking USELESS.
510 a month is more than a lot of part time workers get, they manage just fine. Don't forget that.
I think what you've fallen for is what I call "the window cleaner effect". People who start a company, say a window cleaning company, that's any way successful think that everyone can do it. They're right, up to the point where everyone is a window cleaner. Does a window cleaner get a window cleaner to clean his windows? Probably not. Is there a market in the UK for almost five million? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt you could set up any kind of business on 53 quid a week.
Another fallacy you have is this is a choice. You're not forced to do this work if you don't want to, true. But what are the options really? You keep your 53 quid and work 30 hours a week for no money, or you don't do the work and live on 0 quid. No food. No home. No bills. It's not really a choice, is it? You have to eat or else you die. If anything, these people have already proved they're looking for work because they went to the open day looking for gainful employment.
You think you're right, noproof, I get it. Keep talking though, it's funny.
Still waiting...
I think what you've fallen for is what I call "the window cleaner effect". People who start a company, say a window cleaning company, that's any way successful think that everyone can do it. They're right, up to the point where everyone is a window cleaner. Does a window cleaner get a window cleaner to clean his windows? Probably not. Is there a market in the UK for almost five million? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt you could set up any kind of business on 53 quid a week.
Another fallacy you have is this is a choice. You're not forced to do this work if you don't want to, true. But what are the options really? You keep your 53 quid and work 30 hours a week for no money, or you don't do the work and live on 0 quid. No food. No home. No bills. It's not really a choice, is it? You have to eat or else you die. If anything, these people have already proved they're looking for work because they went to the open day looking for gainful employment.
You think you're right, noproof, I get it. Keep talking though, it's funny.
Still waiting...
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
[/quote]
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Why would any company employ people who simply cant/wont do the job , it doesnt matter if they make a million pound profit or a billiion, why should any company pay for staff that cant do the job.? These kids are given a chance at a job , if the store is unable to offer a job at the end of it . in the 3 stores I have been in, they keep contact details of those they would like to , in the event something comes up ..for example , xmas temps.
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
Or you could use the tried and tested method of hiring people, you advertise the position, interview applicants and hire them on a trial basis. This is how it's been done for ages and it's probably how you got your job. I'm not sure of which chain you work for, but I'm sure they're making healthy profits if they're continuing to expand in a recessionary market. Tescos posted profits of 3.8 billion pounds in April, I'm sure they can afford some more minimum wages. You can work for a company and keep your own opinions, you know.
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Why would any company employ people who simply cant/wont do the job , it doesnt matter if they make a million pound profit or a billiion, why should any company pay for staff that cant do the job.? These kids are given a chance at a job , if the store is unable to offer a job at the end of it . in the 3 stores I have been in, they keep contact details of those they would like to , in the event something comes up ..for example , xmas temps.
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
Another fallacy you have is this is a choice. You're not forced to do this work if you don't want to, true. But what are the options really? You keep your 53 quid and work 30 hours a week for no money, or you don't do the work and live on 0 quid. No food. No home. No bills. It's not really a choice, is it? You have to eat or else you die. If anything, these people have already proved they're looking for work because they went to the open day looking for gainful employment.
Still waiting...
[/quote]
Yes, that is your only options. If you can't find work, make work. There are plenty of opportunities in this world outside Window Cleaning. ANYONE can start up a company from NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I did, and I'm making more than enough to survive. My business started after I quit HP and went on a depression binge for six months. I was literally 30 grand in debt and did not have a job (obviously). I started my business on April 14th, 09 and have never had a problem with money since, and am debt free. Anyone can do this, especially those lazy fucking yukkers.
Check your local bylaws on business zoning. Both Canada and Britain are identical in these laws in that ANYBODY can make under 30,000 dollars tax free without a business license or tax number. You can go out and start a fucking shit licking company, if it makes money, you have money. 30,000 dollars a year is more than enough for anyone to live on.
After they make 30,000 dollars, the 40 dollar business license is easily attainable, and at this point, they have the ability to expand and create more profit with a bonafide business that can be advertised and marketted. If you are in the right type of business, you could bid on contracts with huge businesses to ensure income, and if you want to ensure contracts, you can post ridiculously lower prices than everyone else, ensure work, but get less pay. That's the beauty of the market.
If you can't make money off your own private dealings and your own skills, you are as useless to society as a crack head on the street, and truly deserve to starve.
All of these people have the ability to produce services that make money, but they choose to sit around and bitch that there aren't any jobs.
Thumbs up to big for going to australia to find work, but he could've used his entrepeneurial skillset to create his own business instead of leaving the country (no dig at bigs, lol). He didn't have to be a window washer, he coudl've shovelled shit and made a decent living. Off topic, but I do find it ironic that big is callign this slavery when he left his country for a job that epitomized slavery for nearly a century...lol
Another fallacy you have is this is a choice. You're not forced to do this work if you don't want to, true. But what are the options really? You keep your 53 quid and work 30 hours a week for no money, or you don't do the work and live on 0 quid. No food. No home. No bills. It's not really a choice, is it? You have to eat or else you die. If anything, these people have already proved they're looking for work because they went to the open day looking for gainful employment.
Still waiting...
Yes, that is your only options. If you can't find work, make work. There are plenty of opportunities in this world outside Window Cleaning. ANYONE can start up a company from NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I did, and I'm making more than enough to survive. My business started after I quit HP and went on a depression binge for six months. I was literally 30 grand in debt and did not have a job (obviously). I started my business on April 14th, 09 and have never had a problem with money since, and am debt free. Anyone can do this, especially those lazy fucking yukkers.
Check your local bylaws on business zoning. Both Canada and Britain are identical in these laws in that ANYBODY can make under 30,000 dollars tax free without a business license or tax number. You can go out and start a fucking shit licking company, if it makes money, you have money. 30,000 dollars a year is more than enough for anyone to live on.
After they make 30,000 dollars, the 40 dollar business license is easily attainable, and at this point, they have the ability to expand and create more profit with a bonafide business that can be advertised and marketted. If you are in the right type of business, you could bid on contracts with huge businesses to ensure income, and if you want to ensure contracts, you can post ridiculously lower prices than everyone else, ensure work, but get less pay. That's the beauty of the market.
If you can't make money off your own private dealings and your own skills, you are as useless to society as a crack head on the street, and truly deserve to starve.
All of these people have the ability to produce services that make money, but they choose to sit around and bitch that there aren't any jobs.
Thumbs up to big for going to australia to find work, but he could've used his entrepeneurial skillset to create his own business instead of leaving the country (no dig at bigs, lol). He didn't have to be a window washer, he coudl've shovelled shit and made a decent living. Off topic, but I do find it ironic that big is callign this slavery when he left his country for a job that epitomized slavery for nearly a century...lol
[/quote]
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, I don't use you or scobie's tactics. He pulled that card out early in the debate. About the point where I was proving that these functions and services are actually improving employment figures and getting people working who actually care to work. But who cares about that, it's slavery, whether these people are doing it for their own good or not.
Once I made it clear that it wasn't slavery and was in fact getting these people higher chances of employment, and businesses a higher chance of competent hires, Scobie changed the argument to "but it's keeping all us unemployed fuckers out of jobs!!!". It seems no matter what point I'm rolling over, you guys just can't live with being proven wrong.
I'm sorry, I don't use you or scobie's tactics. He pulled that card out early in the debate. About the point where I was proving that these functions and services are actually improving employment figures and getting people working who actually care to work. But who cares about that, it's slavery, whether these people are doing it for their own good or not.
Once I made it clear that it wasn't slavery and was in fact getting these people higher chances of employment, and businesses a higher chance of competent hires, Scobie changed the argument to "but it's keeping all us unemployed fuckers out of jobs!!!". It seems no matter what point I'm rolling over, you guys just can't live with being proven wrong.
[/quote]
At this point, i wish, brig.
At this point, i wish, brig.
The window cleaning was just an example. That you didn't understand it was to be expected. Congrats on starting a business in less financially troubled times though, with your experience(that not everyone has. If you could keep up, I wouldn't have to keep typing obvious shit in brackets for you). They say businesses borne of recessionary times has a higher chance of long term success, so at least there's that. You know where you can find this utopia of entrepreneurial spirit you love so much? That's right, the third world.
So you'd be quite happy for your competitors wage bill to be subsidised by the taxpayer?
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat" - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Great company you keep.
You're also wrong about setting up a business in the UK, btw.
"
Income above a certain level from savings, investment or property
If you don't already complete a tax return, you'll need to do so if you receive any of the following:
That's not a personal opinion, that's the government saying that. Though somehow you'll take that as you "crushing" me.
Still waiting for proof of all these empty vacancies, lenin
The window cleaning was just an example. That you didn't understand it was to be expected. Congrats on starting a business in less financially troubled times though, with your experience(that not everyone has. If you could keep up, I wouldn't have to keep typing obvious shit in brackets for you). They say businesses borne of recessionary times has a higher chance of long term success, so at least there's that. You know where you can find this utopia of entrepreneurial spirit you love so much? That's right, the third world.
So you'd be quite happy for your competitors wage bill to be subsidised by the taxpayer?
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat" - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Great company you keep.
You're also wrong about setting up a business in the UK, btw.
"
Income above a certain level from savings, investment or property
If you don't already complete a tax return, you'll need to do so if you receive any of the following:
That's not a personal opinion, that's the government saying that. Though somehow you'll take that as you "crushing" me.
Still waiting for proof of all these empty vacancies, lenin
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
[/quote]
I wasn't directly addressing anything you wrote, just pointing out that there already exist legions of people out there working (paid in kind, paid with a stipend, paid in expenses, and unpaid) in the hope of getting a full-time job. And the evidence from the market suggests that a tiny minority end up with paid positions, while the companies which 'hire' these poor bastards know they have an ever-ready carousel of people willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing. What makes you think any company will hire people permanently AND pay them when they know they have a carousel of poor bastards ready and waiting care of the DWP?
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
I wasn't directly addressing anything you wrote, just pointing out that there already exist legions of people out there working (paid in kind, paid with a stipend, paid in expenses, and unpaid) in the hope of getting a full-time job. And the evidence from the market suggests that a tiny minority end up with paid positions, while the companies which 'hire' these poor bastards know they have an ever-ready carousel of people willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing. What makes you think any company will hire people permanently AND pay them when they know they have a carousel of poor bastards ready and waiting care of the DWP?
[/quote]
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Why would any company employ people who simply cant/wont do the job , it doesnt matter if they make a million pound profit or a billiion, why should any company pay for staff that cant do the job.? These kids are given a chance at a job , if the store is unable to offer a job at the end of it . in the 3 stores I have been in, they keep contact details of those they would like to , in the event something comes up ..for example , xmas temps.
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
[/quote]
He also made it quite clear that because a business can afford to open more positions (who cares that they are pointless or won't serve a function another position already handles) they should make those positions available simply because people want jobs. I'm sorry, but in my business, I'm only going to open positions when they are absolutely necessary, if they aren't necessary, that's wasted money. The same mindset goes from my small business all the way up to a huge Fortune 500 traded company (if not MORE so with the huge company). Why should I employ someone when I don't need the extra workers? Why should I pay someone for work that my existing work force can already cover on their own? Why should I split my checkbook for someone simply because they want money?
With scobies dream, he'd be getting laid off at every job simply because they opened a position because they had money, then turned around come quarterly and said "Oh shit, why are these jobs here and what are they doing and how are they increasing my bottom line?". Businesses aren't in existence to serve the people, they exist to make money, the bottom line is, jobs without purpose or created simply for employment will get the cut to the throat every time, if they are ever made.
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Why would any company employ people who simply cant/wont do the job , it doesnt matter if they make a million pound profit or a billiion, why should any company pay for staff that cant do the job.? These kids are given a chance at a job , if the store is unable to offer a job at the end of it . in the 3 stores I have been in, they keep contact details of those they would like to , in the event something comes up ..for example , xmas temps.
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
He also made it quite clear that because a business can afford to open more positions (who cares that they are pointless or won't serve a function another position already handles) they should make those positions available simply because people want jobs. I'm sorry, but in my business, I'm only going to open positions when they are absolutely necessary, if they aren't necessary, that's wasted money. The same mindset goes from my small business all the way up to a huge Fortune 500 traded company (if not MORE so with the huge company). Why should I employ someone when I don't need the extra workers? Why should I pay someone for work that my existing work force can already cover on their own? Why should I split my checkbook for someone simply because they want money?
With scobies dream, he'd be getting laid off at every job simply because they opened a position because they had money, then turned around come quarterly and said "Oh shit, why are these jobs here and what are they doing and how are they increasing my bottom line?". Businesses aren't in existence to serve the people, they exist to make money, the bottom line is, jobs without purpose or created simply for employment will get the cut to the throat every time, if they are ever made.
I wasn't directly addressing anything you wrote, just pointing out that there already exist legions of people out there working (paid in kind, paid with a stipend, paid in expenses, and unpaid) in the hope of getting a full-time job. And the evidence from the market suggests that a tiny minority end up with paid positions, while the companies which 'hire' these poor bastards know they have an ever-ready carousel of people willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing. What makes you think any company will hire people permanently AND pay them when they know they have a carousel of poor bastards ready and waiting care of the DWP?
[/quote]
Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol
I wasn't directly addressing anything you wrote, just pointing out that there already exist legions of people out there working (paid in kind, paid with a stipend, paid in expenses, and unpaid) in the hope of getting a full-time job. And the evidence from the market suggests that a tiny minority end up with paid positions, while the companies which 'hire' these poor bastards know they have an ever-ready carousel of people willing to work for nothing, or next to nothing. What makes you think any company will hire people permanently AND pay them when they know they have a carousel of poor bastards ready and waiting care of the DWP?
Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for.
[/quote]
So you got an interview, and the company got a productive employee? Thank you for proving the normal procedure works.
[quote user=Reddwarfnut] and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans,
[/quote]
Well done, you made the effort, and proved my point. If they'd advertised for the job, they might have gotten a better calibre of applicant, which, again, is the accepted practice.
[quote user=Reddwarfnut]
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
[/quote]
He should be fired then. There's plenty of legislation in place to fire unproductive(and I'm guessing non-union) staff. Bad staff are a drain on any business. Wait, are you his boss? And you've let him do fuck all all day? Bad red. Also, you still owe us a vid of that welsh bird with the big tits.
Do you know what kind of profits your company posted this year?
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for.
So you got an interview, and the company got a productive employee? Thank you for proving the normal procedure works.
Well done, you made the effort, and proved my point. If they'd advertised for the job, they might have gotten a better calibre of applicant, which, again, is the accepted practice.
And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
He should be fired then. There's plenty of legislation in place to fire unproductive(and I'm guessing non-union) staff. Bad staff are a drain on any business. Wait, are you his boss? And you've let him do fuck all all day? Bad red. Also, you still owe us a vid of that welsh bird with the big tits.
Do you know what kind of profits your company posted this year?
Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol
[/quote]
Do you wanna take that one, DA?
Sorry DA, I thought you'd catch my little stab at Scobie there. I was actually agreeing 100 FUCKING PERCENT with what you said! It supports everything I said in a two-line message, hopefully no more confusion lol
Do you wanna take that one, DA?
Do you wanna take that one, DA?
[/quote]
lol...
Do you wanna take that one, DA?
lol...
The window cleaning was just an example. That you didn't understand it was to be expected. Congrats on starting a business in less financially troubled times though, with your experience(that not everyone has. If you could keep up, I wouldn't have to keep typing obvious shit in brackets for you). They say businesses borne of recessionary times has a higher chance of long term success, so at least there's that. You know where you can find this utopia of entrepreneurial spirit you love so much? That's right, the third world.
So you'd be quite happy for your competitors wage bill to be subsidised by the taxpayer?
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat" - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Great company you keep.
You're also wrong about setting up a business in the UK, btw.
"
Income above a certain level from savings, investment or property
If you don't already complete a tax return, you'll need to do so if you receive any of the following:
That's not a personal opinion, that's the government saying that. Though somehow you'll take that as you "crushing" me.
Still waiting for proof of all these empty vacancies, lenin
[/quote]
Scobie, you missed my point in all of that. NOBODY HERE CAN PROVIDE NUMBERS YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Everything we're debating is based on assumption, and I am assuming that, like the rest of the human race, britains lie and try to make themselves seem better than they really are. Human fucking nature. I'm not arguing you over the vacancies bullshit, that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that employment systems are putting workers in place to ensure a skilled and motivated workforce to whoever hires them. Get off that topic already. You guys turned this into a silly debate about slavery and job availability when it was only ever about the employment system putting workers in place to keep the economy rolling.
And as Red pointed out, the point i was trying to nail into your thick skulls, employers are only going to hire the most skilled and competent workers that WANT WORK. They see the guys from the employment program working their asses off, because, you know, that's WHY THEY ARE THERE, and they'll see the lazy ass unemployed welfare cocksuckers waiting for a paycheck. Who do you think they're going to hire?
About your Quote above about taxes.
Talk to your local muncipality. That above quote was for the general public who are employed by an employer. Business' operate under a completely different set of rules. I don't know your muncipal zoning bylaws so I can't tell you what is what, I just assume that since Canada and Britain have pretty similar tax laws that Zoning and business laws would probably be the same. Who knows? Maybe they don't allow you guys to make 30,000 a year, if not, that truly does suck, but I would assume that government wants to give as much incentives to business as possible. That's what kept canada out of most of the damage the recession did. I do know that most of the problems in Britain stem from the Banks, just like in America, and not so much anything to do with private businesses (unless they were in mega debt).
Basically, i have to do two tax returns per year. One for myself based on what I paid myself, and one for my business based on total earnings before tax. My personal taxes would be like any other joe, based on how much I make, location, etc blah blah. Business is totally different, taxes are totally different, and what they consider "acceptable non-taxable income" is different. A general joe can be thrown in jail for working under the table as an unlicensed business (example : Joe's Grass Cutting, does not have business license). However, a licensed business has an acceptable margin of 30,000 dollars before they have to start reporting taxes and every penny of income to the government. But that's really nothing to do with any of that. the point I was trying to make was that anyone who want to, can start a business from scratch (literally). I did it by doing everything out of my house at first, then buying a cheap storefront in an old building, and here i am, good to go.
The window cleaning was just an example. That you didn't understand it was to be expected. Congrats on starting a business in less financially troubled times though, with your experience(that not everyone has. If you could keep up, I wouldn't have to keep typing obvious shit in brackets for you). They say businesses borne of recessionary times has a higher chance of long term success, so at least there's that. You know where you can find this utopia of entrepreneurial spirit you love so much? That's right, the third world.
So you'd be quite happy for your competitors wage bill to be subsidised by the taxpayer?
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat" - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Great company you keep.
You're also wrong about setting up a business in the UK, btw.
"
Income above a certain level from savings, investment or property
If you don't already complete a tax return, you'll need to do so if you receive any of the following:
That's not a personal opinion, that's the government saying that. Though somehow you'll take that as you "crushing" me.
Still waiting for proof of all these empty vacancies, lenin
Scobie, you missed my point in all of that. NOBODY HERE CAN PROVIDE NUMBERS YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Everything we're debating is based on assumption, and I am assuming that, like the rest of the human race, britains lie and try to make themselves seem better than they really are. Human fucking nature. I'm not arguing you over the vacancies bullshit, that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that employment systems are putting workers in place to ensure a skilled and motivated workforce to whoever hires them. Get off that topic already. You guys turned this into a silly debate about slavery and job availability when it was only ever about the employment system putting workers in place to keep the economy rolling.
And as Red pointed out, the point i was trying to nail into your thick skulls, employers are only going to hire the most skilled and competent workers that WANT WORK. They see the guys from the employment program working their asses off, because, you know, that's WHY THEY ARE THERE, and they'll see the lazy ass unemployed welfare cocksuckers waiting for a paycheck. Who do you think they're going to hire?
About your Quote above about taxes.
Talk to your local muncipality. That above quote was for the general public who are employed by an employer. Business' operate under a completely different set of rules. I don't know your muncipal zoning bylaws so I can't tell you what is what, I just assume that since Canada and Britain have pretty similar tax laws that Zoning and business laws would probably be the same. Who knows? Maybe they don't allow you guys to make 30,000 a year, if not, that truly does suck, but I would assume that government wants to give as much incentives to business as possible. That's what kept canada out of most of the damage the recession did. I do know that most of the problems in Britain stem from the Banks, just like in America, and not so much anything to do with private businesses (unless they were in mega debt).
Basically, i have to do two tax returns per year. One for myself based on what I paid myself, and one for my business based on total earnings before tax. My personal taxes would be like any other joe, based on how much I make, location, etc blah blah. Business is totally different, taxes are totally different, and what they consider "acceptable non-taxable income" is different. A general joe can be thrown in jail for working under the table as an unlicensed business (example : Joe's Grass Cutting, does not have business license). However, a licensed business has an acceptable margin of 30,000 dollars before they have to start reporting taxes and every penny of income to the government. But that's really nothing to do with any of that. the point I was trying to make was that anyone who want to, can start a business from scratch (literally). I did it by doing everything out of my house at first, then buying a cheap storefront in an old building, and here i am, good to go.
[/quote]
So you got an interview, and the company got a productive employee? Thank you for proving the normal procedure works.
[quote user=Reddwarfnut]and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans,
[/quote]
Well done, you made the effort, and proved my point. If they'd advertised for the job, they might have gotten a better calibre of applicant, which, again, is the accepted practice.
[quote user=Reddwarfnut]And scob i do have my own opinions but after spending allday saying sorry to customers because jonny wankbucket was too busy texting to help a customer, I cant help but think that kid really shouldnt have a job in the store.
[/quote]
He should be fired then. There's plenty of legislation in place to fire unproductive(and I'm guessing non-union) staff. Bad staff are a drain on any business. Wait, are you his boss? And you've let him do fuck all all day? Bad red. Also, you still owe us a vid of that welsh bird with the big tits.
Do you know what kind of profits your company posted this year?
[/quote]
but scob had you noticed i did say about a friend who started on one of these services and is now in the short list for a assistant manager of a new store after proving himself.
[quote user=Reddwarfnut]
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
[/quote]
Im a supervisor , so yeah , i am in charge of shop floor runnings/ staff allocations....i didnt let him do fuck all , i kicked his ass up and down the store, if im working my guts out , everyone around me has to work their guts out , no fucker slacks without me being a massive cunt about it. my point is that my mate started on teh same service that kid did , my mate is a supervisor and is in teh running for assistant manager. With some effort anyone can get off these services if they ahve proven themselves.
as for the vid , shits out on that one , if anything comes along that line ile let you know , also where the fuck have you been have not seen you around for an age , how sthe whole kid thing going for you ?
So you got an interview, and the company got a productive employee? Thank you for proving the normal procedure works.
Well done, you made the effort, and proved my point. If they'd advertised for the job, they might have gotten a better calibre of applicant, which, again, is the accepted practice.
He should be fired then. There's plenty of legislation in place to fire unproductive(and I'm guessing non-union) staff. Bad staff are a drain on any business. Wait, are you his boss? And you've let him do fuck all all day? Bad red. Also, you still owe us a vid of that welsh bird with the big tits.
Do you know what kind of profits your company posted this year?
but scob had you noticed i did say about a friend who started on one of these services and is now in the short list for a assistant manager of a new store after proving himself.
I'l have you know that the job I applied for had been empty 20 mins before I dropped off my c.v. No advert for the job , I just walked in and asked if they had any. I showed up early for my Interview , and was better dressed than the two girls in chav tshirts and jeans, I payed attention during the interview and asked questions like "What would be my duties" and "How good are the prospects of extra hours on the (damn small) hour contract" that I was appling for. I got my job by not waiting around , I got extra hours because I showed I could do the work and was happy for it. , In the last four months Ive had not one but TWO promotions (fair doos im not buying a house anytime soon)moving to Two different stores for said advancements, I have the prospect of another assuming I get all my shit sorted for when teh new round of stores open. A guy teh same age as me started on one of these services that we are arguing about and he is on the short list being interviewed for an assistant managers job. He got that for working for next to nothing and proving himself.
Im a supervisor , so yeah , i am in charge of shop floor runnings/ staff allocations....i didnt let him do fuck all , i kicked his ass up and down the store, if im working my guts out , everyone around me has to work their guts out , no fucker slacks without me being a massive cunt about it. my point is that my mate started on teh same service that kid did , my mate is a supervisor and is in teh running for assistant manager. With some effort anyone can get off these services if they ahve proven themselves.
as for the vid , shits out on that one , if anything comes along that line ile let you know , also where the fuck have you been have not seen you around for an age , how sthe whole kid thing going for you ?
2. The point you're trying to make about skilled workers is a fallacy. These are jobs like shelf stacking for the multi-billion pound profit-making Tescos, BHS or poundland. Supposedly, they're for people to get experience, not to "keep the economy rolling". Why would Tesco need any state subsidy? They posted $5.97 billion in profit in April! If you were a small, independent retailer competing with a nearby Walmart, you'd be happy they didn't have to pay their staff, but you did? Are they a "lazy ass" corporation on work benefit? Can you honestly justify that? Would they not be better off picking up litter or painting hospitals? If they were properly monitored and had a full range of work training provided, maybe it'd be worth it.
2. The quote is for self-assessment. Self employed/sole traders are self-assessed. You assumed wrong. There is no municipality. The tax is set by the government and enforced by HMR&C, local business rates are set by local councils. Britain is not Canada.
3. Saying "lazy ass" all the time says more about you than anyone else.
4. I can do this shit all night.
2. The point you're trying to make about skilled workers is a fallacy. These are jobs like shelf stacking for the multi-billion pound profit-making Tescos, BHS or poundland. Supposedly, they're for people to get experience, not to "keep the economy rolling". Why would Tesco need any state subsidy? They posted $5.97 billion in profit in April! If you were a small, independent retailer competing with a nearby Walmart, you'd be happy they didn't have to pay their staff, but you did? Are they a "lazy ass" corporation on work benefit? Can you honestly justify that? Would they not be better off picking up litter or painting hospitals? If they were properly monitored and had a full range of work training provided, maybe it'd be worth it.
2. The quote is for self-assessment. Self employed/sole traders are self-assessed. You assumed wrong. There is no municipality. The tax is set by the government and enforced by HMR&C, local business rates are set by local councils. Britain is not Canada.
3. Saying "lazy ass" all the time says more about you than anyone else.
4. I can do this shit all night.
as for the vid , shits out on that one , if anything comes along that line ile let you know , also where the fuck have you been have not seen you around for an age , how sthe whole kid thing going for you ?
[/quote]
His head is still massive, and he's a fucking bully, I reckon it's the welsh half. Fairly busy, man. No more all-nighters to talk shit with you lot, unfortunately, bills need paying. Stupid parental responsibilities.
as for the vid , shits out on that one , if anything comes along that line ile let you know , also where the fuck have you been have not seen you around for an age , how sthe whole kid thing going for you ?
His head is still massive, and he's a fucking bully, I reckon it's the welsh half. Fairly busy, man. No more all-nighters to talk shit with you lot, unfortunately, bills need paying. Stupid parental responsibilities.
2. The point you're trying to make about skilled workers is a fallacy. These are jobs like shelf stacking for the multi-billion pound profit-making Tescos, BHS or poundland. Supposedly, they're for people to get experience, not to "keep the economy rolling". Why would Tesco need any state subsidy? They posted $5.97 billion in profit in April! If you were a small, independent retailer competing with a nearby Walmart, you'd be happy they didn't have to pay their staff, but you did? Are they a "lazy ass" corporation on work benefit? Can you honestly justify that? Would they not be better off picking up litter or painting hospitals? If they were properly monitored and had a full range of work training provided, maybe it'd be worth it.
This is why I made more of a point on motivated workers that actually want to work. Yes employers want skilled workers, but above all, they want them to do their fucking jobs. Everyone off the street is NOT a guaranteed good worker, where as someone from an employment program that you have had time to see in action, is pretty well guaranteed because you've seen it. It also shows that these people in these programs WANT work and want to do it for a long time, blah blah blah blah blah blah, I'm going to quit reciting the same things over and over again. You just don't get it.
2. The quote is for self-assessment. Self employed/sole traders are self-assessed. You assumed wrong. There is no municipality. The tax is set by the government and enforced by HMR&C, local business rates are set by local councils. Britain is not Canada.
Then your quote is wrong. Businesses are not taxed the way you or I are taxed. I was attempting to open neutral dialogue with you but if you want to continue with the childish aggressive attitude, alright.
3. Saying "lazy ass" all the time says more about you than anyone else.
Anyone who expects to be given a job simply because they want a job is a lazy fucking goof. If you disagree with that I need to push my palm further into your face. If people want a job, they're going to have to prove they deserve that job. That fits in well with the standard "market and apply" way of things. Actually it fits perfectly. People are complaining that these employment programs are getting opportunities over them... well, that's kind of what employment programs do. If they aren't in the program, they obviously don't want a job too fucking horribly quick.
4. I can do this shit all night.
As you can see, so can I.
[/quote]
2. The point you're trying to make about skilled workers is a fallacy. These are jobs like shelf stacking for the multi-billion pound profit-making Tescos, BHS or poundland. Supposedly, they're for people to get experience, not to "keep the economy rolling". Why would Tesco need any state subsidy? They posted $5.97 billion in profit in April! If you were a small, independent retailer competing with a nearby Walmart, you'd be happy they didn't have to pay their staff, but you did? Are they a "lazy ass" corporation on work benefit? Can you honestly justify that? Would they not be better off picking up litter or painting hospitals? If they were properly monitored and had a full range of work training provided, maybe it'd be worth it.
This is why I made more of a point on motivated workers that actually want to work. Yes employers want skilled workers, but above all, they want them to do their fucking jobs. Everyone off the street is NOT a guaranteed good worker, where as someone from an employment program that you have had time to see in action, is pretty well guaranteed because you've seen it. It also shows that these people in these programs WANT work and want to do it for a long time, blah blah blah blah blah blah, I'm going to quit reciting the same things over and over again. You just don't get it.
2. The quote is for self-assessment. Self employed/sole traders are self-assessed. You assumed wrong. There is no municipality. The tax is set by the government and enforced by HMR&C, local business rates are set by local councils. Britain is not Canada.
Then your quote is wrong. Businesses are not taxed the way you or I are taxed. I was attempting to open neutral dialogue with you but if you want to continue with the childish aggressive attitude, alright.
3. Saying "lazy ass" all the time says more about you than anyone else.
Anyone who expects to be given a job simply because they want a job is a lazy fucking goof. If you disagree with that I need to push my palm further into your face. If people want a job, they're going to have to prove they deserve that job. That fits in well with the standard "market and apply" way of things. Actually it fits perfectly. People are complaining that these employment programs are getting opportunities over them... well, that's kind of what employment programs do. If they aren't in the program, they obviously don't want a job too fucking horribly quick.
4. I can do this shit all night.
As you can see, so can I.
[/quote]
Not sure about Britland, but there are in the States. Well.....some parts of the States. In the industry we are related to, people are STREAMING over to N. Dakota. In Washington they couldn't find people to pick the fucking apples......for 150 dollars A DAY! Lots of other "dirty" jobs also.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/25/10-Dirty-Jobs-That-Nobody-Wants.aspx#page1
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/morning_call/2011/10/apple-growers-find-shortage-of-pickers.html
There are jobs, but I think a lot of people think they are above it. They think they are better than the Mexican or Asian that normally does those jobs, apparently........
@Proofs
"There are plenty of opportunities in this world outside Window Cleaning."
Scobie said, " Does a window cleaner get a window cleaner to clean his windows? Probably not. Is there a market in the UK for almost five million? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt you could set up any kind of business on 53 quid a week."
Nothing wrong with window cleaning. That's what my cousin does in Portland Or. He made up some fliers and hit the streets........he is still doing it two years later. Obviously......there aren't that many people willing to clean windows. Makes some decent money working for himself.......under the table of course......
Anyway, this is not the Great Depression with almost a quarter of the population not working or able to find work.......there is work. It's just not "White People Work". Boo-hoo to the young white people........
Not sure about Britland, but there are in the States. Well.....some parts of the States. In the industry we are related to, people are STREAMING over to N. Dakota. In Washington they couldn't find people to pick the fucking apples......for 150 dollars A DAY! Lots of other "dirty" jobs also.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/25/10-Dirty-Jobs-That-Nobody-Wants.aspx#page1
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/morning_call/2011/10/apple-growers-find-shortage-of-pickers.html
There are jobs, but I think a lot of people think they are above it. They think they are better than the Mexican or Asian that normally does those jobs, apparently........
@Proofs
"There are plenty of opportunities in this world outside Window Cleaning."
Scobie said, " Does a window cleaner get a window cleaner to clean his windows? Probably not. Is there a market in the UK for almost five million? I doubt it. I also seriously doubt you could set up any kind of business on 53 quid a week."
Nothing wrong with window cleaning. That's what my cousin does in Portland Or. He made up some fliers and hit the streets........he is still doing it two years later. Obviously......there aren't that many people willing to clean windows. Makes some decent money working for himself.......under the table of course......
Anyway, this is not the Great Depression with almost a quarter of the population not working or able to find work.......there is work. It's just not "White People Work". Boo-hoo to the young white people........
As you can see, so can I.[/quote]
[/quote]
You can't do it properly.
As you can see, so can I.
You can't do it properly.
As you can see, so can I.[/quote]
[/quote]
You can't do it properly.
[/quote]
Seems to be working quite well on you and your ear plugs.
As you can see, so can I.
You can't do it properly.
Seems to be working quite well on you and your ear plugs.
They are being paid. Their U.E. benefit payments are the 'wages' under this program. Work experience is of benefit to the unemployed as it does improve the chances of obtaining gainful employment. They are lucky, for the productivity of a new worker during training, usually does not equal the cost involved in the training.
That anyone is seriously whining about this, proves that 'socialism' has already fucked us beyond the point of societal suicide.
They are being paid. Their U.E. benefit payments are the 'wages' under this program. Work experience is of benefit to the unemployed as it does improve the chances of obtaining gainful employment. They are lucky, for the productivity of a new worker during training, usually does not equal the cost involved in the training.
That anyone is seriously whining about this, proves that 'socialism' has already fucked us beyond the point of societal suicide.
[/quote]
^ Agreed.
I feel what would work better is possibly these companies pay into unemployment for the services rendered. That way the companies aren't getting free labor, cause that would be too easy for them to take advantage of and never hire any one. Then again, some one above mentioned community service, that to me is an excellent idea, but then again the people need rights and can't be treated as slaves. But it would be good for those that have been unemployed for way too long. Those people should report to a caseworker on a monthly basis and show how many resumes they have sent out. But to say they need to earn their unemployment is BS, at least here in the states cause you get what you have already paid into it and when your out of benefits your done. Also it really pisses me off to here the news saying unemployment has dropped. Oh bullshit! I know plenty of people that have lost great jobs, at no fault of their own, just the stinkin economy n such and have to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. Just cause these people are working at McDonalds, doesn't mean their employment problems are solved.
^ Agreed.
I feel what would work better is possibly these companies pay into unemployment for the services rendered. That way the companies aren't getting free labor, cause that would be too easy for them to take advantage of and never hire any one. Then again, some one above mentioned community service, that to me is an excellent idea, but then again the people need rights and can't be treated as slaves. But it would be good for those that have been unemployed for way too long. Those people should report to a caseworker on a monthly basis and show how many resumes they have sent out. But to say they need to earn their unemployment is BS, at least here in the states cause you get what you have already paid into it and when your out of benefits your done. Also it really pisses me off to here the news saying unemployment has dropped. Oh bullshit! I know plenty of people that have lost great jobs, at no fault of their own, just the stinkin economy n such and have to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. Just cause these people are working at McDonalds, doesn't mean their employment problems are solved.
The other jobs...well, they don't all translate to Britain, but even if they did, there aren't millions of them. They're fairly specialised, almost anomalies. For what you do the pay sucks too, though it'd be marginally higher in Britland. But the free market dictates that wages should rise if they can't get the workers, so maybe it's bosses tryin to be tight.
As for your black marketeer cousin, there isn't anything wrong with window cleaning, I used it as an example. I could've said carpet cleaning, dog walking...all sorts of shit. There comes a time when the market gets saturated, or when there just isn't disposable income for things like that, and that time is Britain right now. (Black Market ftw :p)
I thought you right wingers would be all against taxpayer money going to profitable businesses, with the government paying people to work for big business. If the problem ye have is the actual welfare payments, would it not be better to have them working for the government for the dole? Instead of paying a government worker full wages you could have five of these picking up rubbish, or clamping illegally parked cars. As long as they got travel/food expenses too I don't think even I'd have a problem with that.
The other jobs...well, they don't all translate to Britain, but even if they did, there aren't millions of them. They're fairly specialised, almost anomalies. For what you do the pay sucks too, though it'd be marginally higher in Britland. But the free market dictates that wages should rise if they can't get the workers, so maybe it's bosses tryin to be tight.
As for your black marketeer cousin, there isn't anything wrong with window cleaning, I used it as an example. I could've said carpet cleaning, dog walking...all sorts of shit. There comes a time when the market gets saturated, or when there just isn't disposable income for things like that, and that time is Britain right now. (Black Market ftw :p)
I thought you right wingers would be all against taxpayer money going to profitable businesses, with the government paying people to work for big business. If the problem ye have is the actual welfare payments, would it not be better to have them working for the government for the dole? Instead of paying a government worker full wages you could have five of these picking up rubbish, or clamping illegally parked cars. As long as they got travel/food expenses too I don't think even I'd have a problem with that.
The other jobs...well, they don't all translate to Britain, but even if they did, there aren't millions of them. They're fairly specialised, almost anomalies. For what you do the pay sucks too, though it'd be marginally higher in Britland. But the free market dictates that wages should rise if they can't get the workers, so maybe it's bosses tryin to be tight.
As for your black marketeer cousin, there isn't anything wrong with window cleaning, I used it as an example. I could've said carpet cleaning, dog walking...all sorts of shit. There comes a time when the market gets saturated, or when there just isn't disposable income for things like that, and that time is Britain right now. (Black Market ftw :p)
I thought you right wingers would be all against taxpayer money going to profitable businesses, with the government paying people to work for big business. If the problem ye have is the actual welfare payments, would it not be better to have them working for the government for the dole? Instead of paying a government worker full wages you could have five of these picking up rubbish, or clamping illegally parked cars. As long as they got travel/food expenses too I don't think even I'd have a problem with that.
[/quote]
Funny.
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
The other jobs...well, they don't all translate to Britain, but even if they did, there aren't millions of them. They're fairly specialised, almost anomalies. For what you do the pay sucks too, though it'd be marginally higher in Britland. But the free market dictates that wages should rise if they can't get the workers, so maybe it's bosses tryin to be tight.
As for your black marketeer cousin, there isn't anything wrong with window cleaning, I used it as an example. I could've said carpet cleaning, dog walking...all sorts of shit. There comes a time when the market gets saturated, or when there just isn't disposable income for things like that, and that time is Britain right now. (Black Market ftw :p)
I thought you right wingers would be all against taxpayer money going to profitable businesses, with the government paying people to work for big business. If the problem ye have is the actual welfare payments, would it not be better to have them working for the government for the dole? Instead of paying a government worker full wages you could have five of these picking up rubbish, or clamping illegally parked cars. As long as they got travel/food expenses too I don't think even I'd have a problem with that.
Funny.
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
Funny.
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
[/quote]
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"?
2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying?
Funny.
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"?
2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying?
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"?
2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying?
[/quote]
Quoting your argument woudl make this thread unimaginably hard to scroll through.
Instead I will ask you to read over every single one of your posts in regards to my points on businesses choosing candidates based on their motivation to do a good job and ability, and your rebuttals claiming the general public has an inherent "right" to those jobs over the employment pool. I made it clear that was up to the employer, whether he wanted to hire someone he could visibly see did a good job, or take the risk and hire someone who simply says they are good on paper.
This was all about the same time you were claiming it was slave labour from people already being paid benefits. I don't care how much.... they're getting paid, go cry in a corner for them while listening to bonjovi for all i care. I'll go rent a violin and learn how to play it for you.
There are plenty of people in your country, just like ANY country with a welfare system, that choose to not work and sit on the system all their lives. It's called moving in with parents or a party of 5 in a one bedroom apartment. It's do able, disgusting, but doable (I personally look down on that, but whatever, i guess they are surviving). You should be happy that some people are actually using the system to go out and expose themselves to a workforce and get themselves back in the game as fast possible.
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"?
2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying?
Quoting your argument woudl make this thread unimaginably hard to scroll through.
Instead I will ask you to read over every single one of your posts in regards to my points on businesses choosing candidates based on their motivation to do a good job and ability, and your rebuttals claiming the general public has an inherent "right" to those jobs over the employment pool. I made it clear that was up to the employer, whether he wanted to hire someone he could visibly see did a good job, or take the risk and hire someone who simply says they are good on paper.
This was all about the same time you were claiming it was slave labour from people already being paid benefits. I don't care how much.... they're getting paid, go cry in a corner for them while listening to bonjovi for all i care. I'll go rent a violin and learn how to play it for you.
There are plenty of people in your country, just like ANY country with a welfare system, that choose to not work and sit on the system all their lives. It's called moving in with parents or a party of 5 in a one bedroom apartment. It's do able, disgusting, but doable (I personally look down on that, but whatever, i guess they are surviving). You should be happy that some people are actually using the system to go out and expose themselves to a workforce and get themselves back in the game as fast possible.
[/quote]
Thought so. Dunno what thread you were reading, but you weren't reading this one. Not once did I say anything about a right to a job, or insurance. The fact that you plain out admitted lying means I've won.
Thought so. Dunno what thread you were reading, but you weren't reading this one. Not once did I say anything about a right to a job, or insurance. The fact that you plain out admitted lying means I've won.
Here it is, with my response, of course, so you can scroll up to that point and relive it all, relevant part bolded and underlined for your viewing aesthetics :
[quote user=Scobiewan]This is why tan sucks, people are thick round here.
Keep your palm on your face for yourself, scobie.
This isn't about the business, this thread has always been about the people.
Your original argument was that people were being forced into slavery by the state. I completely blew that out of the water. I also pointed out that necessary businesses get free labour in the form of paid workers to keep up their economical end of the deal and prevent them for going under and providing more jobs. If a business can't get people apply or stay there, what do you expect them to do, whither away and die (We are in a Recession, you know?)? Especially if this is a business in a key market for growth? If people were able to get jobs, don't you think they woud have gotten a job instead of resorting to a job fishing system like this? Exactly.
Now you're starting on a completely different argument and then claiming everyone is stupid for not seeing it your way.
If we were arguing about that, Scobie, maybe we would have been talking about that. But we weren't.
Maybe, just maybe, all of TAN aren't the morons, maybe you on your lonesome are the moron?
----------------------------------------------------
I forgot to add in that retort, that you don't seem to realize that welfare is still taxed, and people still have to pay income tax on it.
Here it is, with my response, of course, so you can scroll up to that point and relive it all, relevant part bolded and underlined for your viewing aesthetics :
Keep your palm on your face for yourself, scobie.
This isn't about the business, this thread has always been about the people.
Your original argument was that people were being forced into slavery by the state. I completely blew that out of the water. I also pointed out that necessary businesses get free labour in the form of paid workers to keep up their economical end of the deal and prevent them for going under and providing more jobs. If a business can't get people apply or stay there, what do you expect them to do, whither away and die (We are in a Recession, you know?)? Especially if this is a business in a key market for growth? If people were able to get jobs, don't you think they woud have gotten a job instead of resorting to a job fishing system like this? Exactly.
Now you're starting on a completely different argument and then claiming everyone is stupid for not seeing it your way.
If we were arguing about that, Scobie, maybe we would have been talking about that. But we weren't.
Maybe, just maybe, all of TAN aren't the morons, maybe you on your lonesome are the moron?
----------------------------------------------------
I forgot to add in that retort, that you don't seem to realize that welfare is still taxed, and people still have to pay income tax on it.
You lose@tan.
You lose@tan.
You lose@tan.
[/quote]
hey, you were the one that openly said to give the regular joes looking for a job the job over the person in the employment placement system regardless if they were more qualified or better suited for the task. That sounds like entitlement and rights to me.
Could you please point out where I said you said people had a right to insurance? In that last post I was pretty clear that I don't support people who sit on welfare systems. Quotes, please.
You lose@tan.
hey, you were the one that openly said to give the regular joes looking for a job the job over the person in the employment placement system regardless if they were more qualified or better suited for the task. That sounds like entitlement and rights to me.
Could you please point out where I said you said people had a right to insurance? In that last post I was pretty clear that I don't support people who sit on welfare systems. Quotes, please.
[/quote]
Yay!
Yay!
Yay!
[/quote]
YAY!
... this thread should've ended long ago.
Yay!
YAY!
... this thread should've ended long ago.
YAY!
... this thread should've ended long ago.
[/quote]
YAY!
... this thread should've ended long ago.
You are quite possibly the dumbest person on the internets right now.
[quote user=proofinlife]
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
[/quote]
I followed up this lie with:
[quote user=Scobiewan]
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"?
2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying?
[/quote]
Then, when you couldn't find a quote attributed to me along those lines because they don't exist, you quoted yourself as proof that I said it. Which prompted me to say of your comment:
[quote user=Scobiewan] ...No "right to a job", no "right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted.
[/quote]
because, you know, you failed to show where I said that.
Dude, it's over. You're tying yourself up in knots now, you can't even remember what you said anymore. That I even had to explain this to you in excruciatingly simple language so you'd understand is unbelievable. Really. I'm practically in shock at how staggeringly deficient you are.
Someone stick a fork in him, he's done.
You are quite possibly the dumbest person on the internets right now.
You think people should be handed out jobs simply because they want them and not have to earn them, then turn around and say that people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.
I followed up this lie with:
Ok, you failed to provide any links that supported your argument, so you've decided to make shit up.
1. Where did I say people should be given jobs "because they want them and not have to earn them"?
2. Where did I say "people should be given employment insurance as long as they want them and have to earn them"?
Or are you just lying?
Then, when you couldn't find a quote attributed to me along those lines because they don't exist, you quoted yourself as proof that I said it. Which prompted me to say of your comment:
because, you know, you failed to show where I said that.
Dude, it's over. You're tying yourself up in knots now, you can't even remember what you said anymore. That I even had to explain this to you in excruciatingly simple language so you'd understand is unbelievable. Really. I'm practically in shock at how staggeringly deficient you are.
Someone stick a fork in him, he's done.
You don't even live in this country, so you can't say fuck all.
There are jobs out there, but there are just too many people applying for them.
I became unemployed for 9 months thanks to the recession and I have been applying for 10-20 jobs A DAY. The ones who do get back to me with a rejection ( a very few) tell me they have had far too many applicants. Two weeks ago I went for an interview for a £100 a week IT Technician internship and the interviewer told me they had over 600 CVs sent to them, short-listed to about 10.
If I get sucked into this government's work experience programme then I will finally know how it will feel like to be a Jew boarding a train and being sent to Auschwitz.
You don't even live in this country, so you can't say fuck all.
There are jobs out there, but there are just too many people applying for them.
I became unemployed for 9 months thanks to the recession and I have been applying for 10-20 jobs A DAY. The ones who do get back to me with a rejection ( a very few) tell me they have had far too many applicants. Two weeks ago I went for an interview for a £100 a week IT Technician internship and the interviewer told me they had over 600 CVs sent to them, short-listed to about 10.
If I get sucked into this government's work experience programme then I will finally know how it will feel like to be a Jew boarding a train and being sent to Auschwitz.
If I get sucked into this government's work experience programme then I will finally know how it will feel like to be a Jew boarding a train and being sent to Auschwitz.
[/quote]
you lost me there...
If I get sucked into this government's work experience programme then I will finally know how it will feel like to be a Jew boarding a train and being sent to Auschwitz.
you lost me there...
You are quite possibly the dumbest person on the internets right now.
[quote user=proofinlife] as long as they want them and have to earn them. Interesting.[/quote]
I followed up this lie with:
[quote user=Scobiewan]Or are you just lying?[/quote]
Then, when you couldn't find a quote attributed to me along those lines because they don't exist, you quoted yourself as proof that I said it. Which prompted me to say of your comment:
[quote user=Scobiewan]...No "right to a job", no "right to insurance". You're pathetically dimwitted.[/quote]
because, you know, you failed to show where I said that.
Dude, it's over. You're tying yourself up in knots now, you can't even remember what you said anymore. That I even had to explain this to you in excruciatingly simple language so you'd understand is unbelievable. Really. I'm practically in shock at how staggeringly deficient you are.
Someone stick a fork in him, he's done.
[/quote]
Found the quote, posted it, you ignored and self flagellated as the ladies would say.
You are quite possibly the dumbest person on the internets right now.
I followed up this lie with:
Then, when you couldn't find a quote attributed to me along those lines because they don't exist, you quoted yourself as proof that I said it. Which prompted me to say of your comment:
because, you know, you failed to show where I said that.
Dude, it's over. You're tying yourself up in knots now, you can't even remember what you said anymore. That I even had to explain this to you in excruciatingly simple language so you'd understand is unbelievable. Really. I'm practically in shock at how staggeringly deficient you are.
Someone stick a fork in him, he's done.
Found the quote, posted it, you ignored and self flagellated as the ladies would say.
scobie said:
1. there are more people than jobs
2. people won't work for nothing
3. the government is handling it wrong
4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to
5. work should be made more attainable
proof said:
1. there are more people than jobs
2. people won't work for nothing
3. the government is handling it wrong
4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to
5. work should be made more attainable
... did i miss anything?
scobie said:
1. there are more people than jobs
2. people won't work for nothing
3. the government is handling it wrong
4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to
5. work should be made more attainable
proof said:
1. there are more people than jobs
2. people won't work for nothing
3. the government is handling it wrong
4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to
5. work should be made more attainable
... did i miss anything?
scobie said:
1. there are more people than jobs
2. people won't work for nothing
3. the government is handling it wrong
4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to
5. work should be made more attainable
proof said:
1. there are more people than jobs
2. people won't work for nothing
3. the government is handling it wrong
4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to
5. work should be made more attainable
... did i miss anything?
[/quote]
yes..
this part:
NANANANA you stooopid!!!
No U!!!
scobie said:
1. there are more people than jobs
2. people won't work for nothing
3. the government is handling it wrong
4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to
5. work should be made more attainable
proof said:
1. there are more people than jobs
2. people won't work for nothing
3. the government is handling it wrong
4. people love getting paid to do nothing, which i morally object to
5. work should be made more attainable
... did i miss anything?
yes..
this part:
NANANANA you stooopid!!!
No U!!!
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAwR6w2TgxY&feature=relmfu[/video]
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.
[/quote]
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
What the pro-capitalist mob fail to realise is that by raising taxes on small-businesses, cutting taxes on mega-corporations and providing them with slave labour are Corporatist rather than Capitalist policies.
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
[/quote]
Syndicalism....fascism.
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
Syndicalism....fascism.
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
[/quote]
That was kinda my point.
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me, more monopolistic.
That was kinda my point.
secondly i came across the part where proofinlife said that anyone can start a business. what i read from that is that everyone should start a business. if they're not making money, they must be idiots, cos anyone can do it. in 2009, in norway, about 6500 businesses went bust. that's in a country of barely 5 million. now, this was the highest since 2003, when there was about 6300 companies going down. my bet is that many of these were startups, single person businesses, cos huge, established corporations don't go down by the year 'round these parts. so true, anyone can start a business, but not anyone can run it. following that i'd also like to see a discussion on why people won't go into business on their own. i seriously don't think it's for everyone. there are both sociological and anthropological issues with this that i am not very well versed in, but i have crossed paths with ideas of why some people are a steve jobs type, while others aren't. anyone can try to emulate a successful businessman, but it is out of many people's comfort zones to be something they're not. and proofinlife, when i say comfort zone, it might not actually be a comfortable zone. i'm not comfortable around mentally challenged people, especially those who seem to be full blown tomato, but it's not outside my comfort zone to work with them.
thirdly, this thread is long, and the women are working well to derail it by slandering and being womanly, like they do with most things in life
secondly i came across the part where proofinlife said that anyone can start a business. what i read from that is that everyone should start a business. if they're not making money, they must be idiots, cos anyone can do it. in 2009, in norway, about 6500 businesses went bust. that's in a country of barely 5 million. now, this was the highest since 2003, when there was about 6300 companies going down. my bet is that many of these were startups, single person businesses, cos huge, established corporations don't go down by the year 'round these parts. so true, anyone can start a business, but not anyone can run it. following that i'd also like to see a discussion on why people won't go into business on their own. i seriously don't think it's for everyone. there are both sociological and anthropological issues with this that i am not very well versed in, but i have crossed paths with ideas of why some people are a steve jobs type, while others aren't. anyone can try to emulate a successful businessman, but it is out of many people's comfort zones to be something they're not. and proofinlife, when i say comfort zone, it might not actually be a comfortable zone. i'm not comfortable around mentally challenged people, especially those who seem to be full blown tomato, but it's not outside my comfort zone to work with them.
thirdly, this thread is long, and the women are working well to derail it by slandering and being womanly, like they do with most things in life
Had these workers been paid for their labour, they would have paid the state £50.57 in tax per week, and so the state is losing nearly £18m a week in unpaid taxes from the worker alone. This excludes employers NICs as well as increased VAT etc. But not only that, throughout the time that Sainsbury's and Tesco's use these workers for unpaid labour, we continue to pay these youths benefits. Under the scheme we will be giving each forced worker a payment of £67.50. And so we pay a total of £23.6m in a weeks worth of benefit payments to the proposed 350,000 workers. The grand total of this loss to the worker and taxpayer is £150m for a week's worth of workfare.
Had these workers been paid for their labour, they would have paid the state £50.57 in tax per week, and so the state is losing nearly £18m a week in unpaid taxes from the worker alone. This excludes employers NICs as well as increased VAT etc. But not only that, throughout the time that Sainsbury's and Tesco's use these workers for unpaid labour, we continue to pay these youths benefits. Under the scheme we will be giving each forced worker a payment of £67.50. And so we pay a total of £23.6m in a weeks worth of benefit payments to the proposed 350,000 workers. The grand total of this loss to the worker and taxpayer is £150m for a week's worth of workfare.
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."
[/quote]
Without reading the rest of this thread (yet) I can see I agree with the above.
Also, at what point are they not getting paid? They get job seekers for free. They get paid. If they want a better job they'll fucking find one. I was on the dole for 3 months. Three whole months and a measly fucking 270 quid. Having to go to the job centre was enough of a fuck about to make me find a job.
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."
Without reading the rest of this thread (yet) I can see I agree with the above.
Also, at what point are they not getting paid? They get job seekers for free. They get paid. If they want a better job they'll fucking find one. I was on the dole for 3 months. Three whole months and a measly fucking 270 quid. Having to go to the job centre was enough of a fuck about to make me find a job.
Aye, I was reading over some of the literature on New Labour's 'New Deal' and we had pretty much the same issues raised. Slightly different payment system, but companies such as Tesco were being paid £70 a week to 'hire' staff, and then another £750 to 'train' those they 'hired'. I thinkTesco ended up being subsidised to the tune of £4 billion.
The thing that gets me is these companies have openings, they need staff, so they should be hiring staff instead of relying on free labour, state subsidised free labour, courtesy of the DWP.
I remember the company I worked for got on-board with the New Deal, and they made a small fortune. The thing was, there was no shortage of legitimate applicants for positions, and we needed staff at the time, but instead of legitimately hiring staff and paying for them, they received a carousel of incredibly cheap labour courtesy of the state. Quids in.
Aye, I was reading over some of the literature on New Labour's 'New Deal' and we had pretty much the same issues raised. Slightly different payment system, but companies such as Tesco were being paid £70 a week to 'hire' staff, and then another £750 to 'train' those they 'hired'. I thinkTesco ended up being subsidised to the tune of £4 billion.
The thing that gets me is these companies have openings, they need staff, so they should be hiring staff instead of relying on free labour, state subsidised free labour, courtesy of the DWP.
I remember the company I worked for got on-board with the New Deal, and they made a small fortune. The thing was, there was no shortage of legitimate applicants for positions, and we needed staff at the time, but instead of legitimately hiring staff and paying for them, they received a carousel of incredibly cheap labour courtesy of the state. Quids in.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
[/quote]
They get paid JSA. It's not unpaid.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, these interns are slaves, because they aren't being paid and want a job.
They get paid JSA. It's not unpaid.
They get paid JSA. It's not unpaid.
[/quote]
Exactly the point i was trying to make, that comment was just a stab at everyone calling them slaves.
They get paid JSA. It's not unpaid.
Exactly the point i was trying to make, that comment was just a stab at everyone calling them slaves.
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."[/quote]
Without reading the rest of this thread (yet) I can see I agree with the above.
Also, at what point are they not getting paid? They get job seekers for free. They get paid. If they want a better job they'll fucking find one. I was on the dole for 3 months. Three whole months and a measly fucking 270 quid. Having to go to the job centre was enough of a fuck about to make me find a job.
[/quote]
I get less than that for working a part-time job
"Like Reilly, Rayburn was not told that he had a week to refuse the placement, and was working in Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement."
"We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement."
Without reading the rest of this thread (yet) I can see I agree with the above.
Also, at what point are they not getting paid? They get job seekers for free. They get paid. If they want a better job they'll fucking find one. I was on the dole for 3 months. Three whole months and a measly fucking 270 quid. Having to go to the job centre was enough of a fuck about to make me find a job.
I get less than that for working a part-time job
They get paid JSA. It's not unpaid.
[/quote]
... If Tesco, or any other company use this 'service', then it's because they need labour. If Tesco or any other company need labour, they should hire staff which they pay for themselves and not rely on labour that is free to them because it is being paid for by the state. If Tesco or any other company use this service they may well see that it's in their best financial interest not to always hire permanent staff and instead rely on the DWP sending free labour their way every few weeks.
We make a tax loss, we subsidise private companies, and we put people into work at below NMW rates creating a cheap source of labour and in so doing keep wages down. 30 hours a week at NMW is £182... JSA is £53 a week, and the companies 'hiring' these people aren't even paying that, WE ARE!
They get paid JSA. It's not unpaid.
... If Tesco, or any other company use this 'service', then it's because they need labour. If Tesco or any other company need labour, they should hire staff which they pay for themselves and not rely on labour that is free to them because it is being paid for by the state. If Tesco or any other company use this service they may well see that it's in their best financial interest not to always hire permanent staff and instead rely on the DWP sending free labour their way every few weeks.
We make a tax loss, we subsidise private companies, and we put people into work at below NMW rates creating a cheap source of labour and in so doing keep wages down. 30 hours a week at NMW is £182... JSA is £53 a week, and the companies 'hiring' these people aren't even paying that, WE ARE!
Like, for instance, Tesco can only request workers if they both need them and would be willing to employ suitable people afterwards. Say they take 10 people for 3 months, after the 3 months they must employ at least 8, or repay the government.
Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all. Why is it as soon as these people are expected to work to earn that free money (which no longer becomes free and people can stop villifying them) people call it slavery? I'd bet black slaves would've LOVED the freedom to move around as often as they wanted, had their own money to spend and didn't have a curfew to keep or sleep in the barn. They would have given their left arms to be a part of a society where you earn your own money, everyone has a fair chance regardless of class colour or creed. Fuck, go back in time and borrow some slaves from a wealthy cotton farmer, bring them here and tell them about life and they'd think you were fucking crackers. "whut, sir, dem peoples are all queuing for dur free monies?!" "Yep, in this day and age we give drug addicts, alcoholics and lazy people all the money they need to be druggy, pisshead lazy cunts!" "yous a lying, boss" "nope, honestly, this is how fucked up society is these days. Ready to go back to picking cotton for no wage?"
Like, for instance, Tesco can only request workers if they both need them and would be willing to employ suitable people afterwards. Say they take 10 people for 3 months, after the 3 months they must employ at least 8, or repay the government.
Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all. Why is it as soon as these people are expected to work to earn that free money (which no longer becomes free and people can stop villifying them) people call it slavery? I'd bet black slaves would've LOVED the freedom to move around as often as they wanted, had their own money to spend and didn't have a curfew to keep or sleep in the barn. They would have given their left arms to be a part of a society where you earn your own money, everyone has a fair chance regardless of class colour or creed. Fuck, go back in time and borrow some slaves from a wealthy cotton farmer, bring them here and tell them about life and they'd think you were fucking crackers. "whut, sir, dem peoples are all queuing for dur free monies?!" "Yep, in this day and age we give drug addicts, alcoholics and lazy people all the money they need to be druggy, pisshead lazy cunts!" "yous a lying, boss" "nope, honestly, this is how fucked up society is these days. Ready to go back to picking cotton for no wage?"
Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all.
[/quote]
They're not paid to do fuck all. The concept is simple, people are given barely enough money to survive on so they feel compelled to find work, and for the most part it works. There is also a contract which states that if you don't fulfil the obligations (looking for at least X amount of jobs a week) then you don't get your state benefits. In effect you're being paid to live while you look for work.
Now, I know that there are people on the fiddle, but compare the £1 billion or so lost to fraud and incompetence in the benefits budget to the £70 to £120 billion lost through tax avoidance and evasion by some of our biggest companies and wealthiest individuals and you start to question 'why' is it we force people into these schemes which benefit private companies while at the same time letting companies such as Tesco, or the latest example Vodafone, get away with not paying a tax bill of £8 billion.
There is something tragically wrong with the narrative in this country that we attack those at the bottom of the ladder, those who aren't that much of a problem as compared to the real social leeches that avoid paying millions, hundreds of millions, and billions in taxes.
Fuck knows. I just know I don't exactly see how it's classed as slavery when these people are paid to do fuck all.
They're not paid to do fuck all. The concept is simple, people are given barely enough money to survive on so they feel compelled to find work, and for the most part it works. There is also a contract which states that if you don't fulfil the obligations (looking for at least X amount of jobs a week) then you don't get your state benefits. In effect you're being paid to live while you look for work.
Now, I know that there are people on the fiddle, but compare the £1 billion or so lost to fraud and incompetence in the benefits budget to the £70 to £120 billion lost through tax avoidance and evasion by some of our biggest companies and wealthiest individuals and you start to question 'why' is it we force people into these schemes which benefit private companies while at the same time letting companies such as Tesco, or the latest example Vodafone, get away with not paying a tax bill of £8 billion.
There is something tragically wrong with the narrative in this country that we attack those at the bottom of the ladder, those who aren't that much of a problem as compared to the real social leeches that avoid paying millions, hundreds of millions, and billions in taxes.
Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
[/quote]
wtf are you on about? i went aus to get pissed, not work. i had a job before i left, shit last time i was unemployed (for 3 months coz getting a job is a cunt) i went for 13 interviews (all in the same week) and got offered 12 of the jobs, so i got to pick. still that took 3 months, because as i said, aint no fucking jobs.
wtf are you on about? i went aus to get pissed, not work. i had a job before i left, shit last time i was unemployed (for 3 months coz getting a job is a cunt) i went for 13 interviews (all in the same week) and got offered 12 of the jobs, so i got to pick. still that took 3 months, because as i said, aint no fucking jobs.
They're not paid to do fuck all. The concept is simple, people are given barely enough money to survive on so they feel compelled to find work, and for the most part it works. There is also a contract which states that if you don't fulfil the obligations (looking for at least X amount of jobs a week) then you don't get your state benefits. In effect you're being paid to live while you look for work.
Now, I know that there are people on the fiddle, but compare the £1 billion or so lost to fraud and incompetence in the benefits budget to the £70 to £120 billion lost through tax avoidance and evasion by some of our biggest companies and wealthiest individuals and you start to question 'why' is it we force people into these schemes which benefit private companies while at the same time letting companies such as Tesco, or the latest example Vodafone, get away with not paying a tax bill of £8 billion.
There is something tragically wrong with the narrative in this country that we attack those at the bottom of the ladder, those who aren't that much of a problem as compared to the real social leeches that avoid paying millions, hundreds of millions, and billions in taxes.
[/quote]
I call it reverse class war. The corporate media have created this mindset. Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press (Chomsky's propaganda model and all that jazz)
Oh, and I'm just gonna post this pic (again):
They're not paid to do fuck all. The concept is simple, people are given barely enough money to survive on so they feel compelled to find work, and for the most part it works. There is also a contract which states that if you don't fulfil the obligations (looking for at least X amount of jobs a week) then you don't get your state benefits. In effect you're being paid to live while you look for work.
Now, I know that there are people on the fiddle, but compare the £1 billion or so lost to fraud and incompetence in the benefits budget to the £70 to £120 billion lost through tax avoidance and evasion by some of our biggest companies and wealthiest individuals and you start to question 'why' is it we force people into these schemes which benefit private companies while at the same time letting companies such as Tesco, or the latest example Vodafone, get away with not paying a tax bill of £8 billion.
There is something tragically wrong with the narrative in this country that we attack those at the bottom of the ladder, those who aren't that much of a problem as compared to the real social leeches that avoid paying millions, hundreds of millions, and billions in taxes.
I call it reverse class war. The corporate media have created this mindset. Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press (Chomsky's propaganda model and all that jazz)
Oh, and I'm just gonna post this pic (again):
" Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press..."
Doesn't Britain already have the toughest restrictions on news media in the entire West? Also, most of your "press" is fucking tabloid celebrity worship. Not sure how you inject "reverse class warfare" into talking aboot some stupid skanks fake tits. You also have PLENTY of state run press.......so it's not like Brits don't have a choice. I looked up the "propaganda model". Pretty interesting. However, it seems that model is applicable to ANY news agency that has a slant of any sort. See Media Matters. So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way?
" Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press..."
Doesn't Britain already have the toughest restrictions on news media in the entire West? Also, most of your "press" is fucking tabloid celebrity worship. Not sure how you inject "reverse class warfare" into talking aboot some stupid skanks fake tits. You also have PLENTY of state run press.......so it's not like Brits don't have a choice. I looked up the "propaganda model". Pretty interesting. However, it seems that model is applicable to ANY news agency that has a slant of any sort. See Media Matters. So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way?
" Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press..."
Doesn't Britain already have the toughest restrictions on news media in the entire West? Also, most of your "press" is fucking tabloid celebrity worship. Not sure how you inject "reverse class warfare" into talking aboot some stupid skanks fake tits. You also have PLENTY of state run press.......so it's not like Brits don't have a choice. I looked up the "propaganda model". Pretty interesting. However, it seems that model is applicable to ANY news agency that has a slant of any sort. See Media Matters. So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way?
[/quote]
No mate you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media.
When you have newspapers like the Sun, The Mail and The Express, owned by millionaires, billionaires and large media corporations, whose main source of revenue is their advertisers and not their readership, then it comes as no surprise that the cost of welfare to the taxpayer is given front page coverage but the cost of tax avoidance is ignored. These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class.
This is no conspiracy; it's common sense.
" Of course this sounds like some batshit tin foil thing but it's really just the natural outcome of the business controlled press..."
Doesn't Britain already have the toughest restrictions on news media in the entire West? Also, most of your "press" is fucking tabloid celebrity worship. Not sure how you inject "reverse class warfare" into talking aboot some stupid skanks fake tits. You also have PLENTY of state run press.......so it's not like Brits don't have a choice. I looked up the "propaganda model". Pretty interesting. However, it seems that model is applicable to ANY news agency that has a slant of any sort. See Media Matters. So it seems to cut many different ways. I am just not sure I would give them TOO much credit for sitting around a huge table and deciding to inject some weird "reverse class warfare" into all of their news stories. I would be open to the possibility that may be an unintended side effect of trying to "give the people what they want" (i.e. garbage news) Could you give me an example that makes you think that way?
No mate you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media.
When you have newspapers like the Sun, The Mail and The Express, owned by millionaires, billionaires and large media corporations, whose main source of revenue is their advertisers and not their readership, then it comes as no surprise that the cost of welfare to the taxpayer is given front page coverage but the cost of tax avoidance is ignored. These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class.
This is no conspiracy; it's common sense.
No mate you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media.
When you have newspapers like the Sun, The Mail and The Express, owned by millionaires, billionaires and large media corporations, whose main source of revenue is their advertisers and not their readership, then it comes as no surprise that the cost of welfare to the taxpayer is given front page coverage but the cost of tax avoidance is ignored. These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class.
This is no conspiracy; it's common sense.
[/quote]
So what? The Independent is owned by a millionaire. It seems to give a different view than the others including the BBC. You have to understand that readership and advertisers go hand in hand. You aren't going to advertise something your readers aren't going to respond to. Like......the hip-hop paper is going to advertise head shops, while the Christian paper will not. I've worked in media. Thats how it works. You don't HAVE to buy those papers. People will gravitate towards a media outlet that they feel best represents how they ALREADY feel. This propaganda model would work exactly the same for a government run agency. Was not the BBC accused of sexing up the Iraq war? That they are able to use this agency as a pulpit for THEIR agendas Left and Right? Frankly, I would be more worried about a government news outlet that I am paying for EVEN IF I DON'T LIKE IT, to be told what THEY want.
First you say, " I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media."
Then you say, "These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class."
You can't have it both ways.....which way is it?
No mate you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media.
When you have newspapers like the Sun, The Mail and The Express, owned by millionaires, billionaires and large media corporations, whose main source of revenue is their advertisers and not their readership, then it comes as no surprise that the cost of welfare to the taxpayer is given front page coverage but the cost of tax avoidance is ignored. These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class.
This is no conspiracy; it's common sense.
So what? The Independent is owned by a millionaire. It seems to give a different view than the others including the BBC. You have to understand that readership and advertisers go hand in hand. You aren't going to advertise something your readers aren't going to respond to. Like......the hip-hop paper is going to advertise head shops, while the Christian paper will not. I've worked in media. Thats how it works. You don't HAVE to buy those papers. People will gravitate towards a media outlet that they feel best represents how they ALREADY feel. This propaganda model would work exactly the same for a government run agency. Was not the BBC accused of sexing up the Iraq war? That they are able to use this agency as a pulpit for THEIR agendas Left and Right? Frankly, I would be more worried about a government news outlet that I am paying for EVEN IF I DON'T LIKE IT, to be told what THEY want.
First you say, " I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media."
Then you say, "These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class."
You can't have it both ways.....which way is it?
[/quote]
that may or may not be the case... i will have to study the matter further ;)
that may or may not be the case... i will have to study the matter further
So what? The Independent is owned by a millionaire. It seems to give a different view than the others including the BBC. You have to understand that readership and advertisers go hand in hand. You aren't going to advertise something your readers aren't going to respond to. Like......the hip-hop paper is going to advertise head shops, while the Christian paper will not. I've worked in media. Thats how it works. You don't HAVE to buy those papers. People will gravitate towards a media outlet that they feel best represents how they ALREADY feel. This propaganda model would work exactly the same for a government run agency. Was not the BBC accused of sexing up the Iraq war? That they are able to use this agency as a pulpit for THEIR agendas Left and Right? Frankly, I would be more worried about a government news outlet that I am paying for EVEN IF I DON'T LIKE IT, to be told what THEY want.
First you say, " I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media."
Then you say, "These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class."
You can't have it both ways.....which way is it?
[/quote]
The BBC exposed how the government's spin doctor Alistair Campbell 'sexed up' the case for war in the September 'dodgy' Dossier. As for the Beeb being a pulpit for government propaganda, lol... almost every government and political party has complained that the BBC has an axe to grind against them. The Tories complain that it's a liberal pinko outfit, Labour and the left complain that it's part of the establishment, the Lib-Dems used to moan about a lack of coverage, the BNP that it's politically correct... I wouldn't class the BBC as government run, it's operationally independent but paid for through a licence fee and is state owned, but just looking at the exposes of government and politicians in power on shows such as Panorama illustrates that content isn't dictated by Whitehall.
Regarding regulation of the press, they have a voluntary body made up of representatives of the press and a voluntary self-written code, and not all newspapers in the UK bother with it, for example the Express Group of newspapers withdrew at the beginning of the year and now don't have to abide by any regulatory framework with regard to what they print (apart from the Advertising Standards Agency and libel laws etc). The BBC by contrast is heavily regulated in what it does and is regulated by OFCOM and held to account under the Communications Act of 2003, the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the BBC Charter and Agreement.
So what? The Independent is owned by a millionaire. It seems to give a different view than the others including the BBC. You have to understand that readership and advertisers go hand in hand. You aren't going to advertise something your readers aren't going to respond to. Like......the hip-hop paper is going to advertise head shops, while the Christian paper will not. I've worked in media. Thats how it works. You don't HAVE to buy those papers. People will gravitate towards a media outlet that they feel best represents how they ALREADY feel. This propaganda model would work exactly the same for a government run agency. Was not the BBC accused of sexing up the Iraq war? That they are able to use this agency as a pulpit for THEIR agendas Left and Right? Frankly, I would be more worried about a government news outlet that I am paying for EVEN IF I DON'T LIKE IT, to be told what THEY want.
First you say, " I'm not suggesting they make an entirely conscious effort to promote reverse class war; it's just the natural outcome of a corporate controlled media."
Then you say, "These papers go out of their way to convince the public that taxes that affect less than 2% of the population are an attack on the middle class."
You can't have it both ways.....which way is it?
The BBC exposed how the government's spin doctor Alistair Campbell 'sexed up' the case for war in the September 'dodgy' Dossier. As for the Beeb being a pulpit for government propaganda, lol... almost every government and political party has complained that the BBC has an axe to grind against them. The Tories complain that it's a liberal pinko outfit, Labour and the left complain that it's part of the establishment, the Lib-Dems used to moan about a lack of coverage, the BNP that it's politically correct... I wouldn't class the BBC as government run, it's operationally independent but paid for through a licence fee and is state owned, but just looking at the exposes of government and politicians in power on shows such as Panorama illustrates that content isn't dictated by Whitehall.
Regarding regulation of the press, they have a voluntary body made up of representatives of the press and a voluntary self-written code, and not all newspapers in the UK bother with it, for example the Express Group of newspapers withdrew at the beginning of the year and now don't have to abide by any regulatory framework with regard to what they print (apart from the Advertising Standards Agency and libel laws etc). The BBC by contrast is heavily regulated in what it does and is regulated by OFCOM and held to account under the Communications Act of 2003, the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the BBC Charter and Agreement.
Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
[/quote]
No, I'm fine with the Welfare state and fully support the giving of hand outs. But I see a lot of dickheads who abuse the system and I think, "ok, why shouldn't these people who abuse the system be put to work?" Cut a drug dealer off from his free rent and council tax exemption and he's pretty screwed (except the big guys who rake it in the bucket loads).
And Pablo is absolutely batshit insane if he thinks the corporate media has created this mindset. When has there ever not been a culture of anger towards people who refuse to work? Not people who can't work, but people who refuse? Never. Some of the more conservative newspapers do push this idea of everyone on benefits, but since when has The Daily Mail ever not published utter shite used to rouse up their subscribers?
There are genuinely people who refuse to work, there are people looking for work and there are people who have no choice and cannot work. Those who refuse or scam the system? Why should they not be put to work for their JSA? What's unreasonable about it? Can you really expect Tesco to hire a load of chavs? There are clearly more people than there are jobs so not everyone is going to be suitable, but at least they were put somewhere and were working and learning. It doesn't even need to be a punishment, it could help young people who've never worked have a proper experience (let's face it, work experience is not an accurate measure) if only for a few months. Pretty sure Apprentices aren't legally entitled to much more. Last I knew it was £65 a week?
Done right and monitored for abuse, it could work.
Also, while I'm talking utter shite. We should start bringing back food stamps for people who continuously refuse work, or abuse alcohol/drugs with dole money. Take these things straight out of their hands.
Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
No, I'm fine with the Welfare state and fully support the giving of hand outs. But I see a lot of dickheads who abuse the system and I think, "ok, why shouldn't these people who abuse the system be put to work?" Cut a drug dealer off from his free rent and council tax exemption and he's pretty screwed (except the big guys who rake it in the bucket loads).
And Pablo is absolutely batshit insane if he thinks the corporate media has created this mindset. When has there ever not been a culture of anger towards people who refuse to work? Not people who can't work, but people who refuse? Never. Some of the more conservative newspapers do push this idea of everyone on benefits, but since when has The Daily Mail ever not published utter shite used to rouse up their subscribers?
There are genuinely people who refuse to work, there are people looking for work and there are people who have no choice and cannot work. Those who refuse or scam the system? Why should they not be put to work for their JSA? What's unreasonable about it? Can you really expect Tesco to hire a load of chavs? There are clearly more people than there are jobs so not everyone is going to be suitable, but at least they were put somewhere and were working and learning. It doesn't even need to be a punishment, it could help young people who've never worked have a proper experience (let's face it, work experience is not an accurate measure) if only for a few months. Pretty sure Apprentices aren't legally entitled to much more. Last I knew it was £65 a week?
Done right and monitored for abuse, it could work.
Also, while I'm talking utter shite. We should start bringing back food stamps for people who continuously refuse work, or abuse alcohol/drugs with dole money. Take these things straight out of their hands.
Repetitively: Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
Stop being a cunt on this one, Matt. It's only for your benefit—not mine.
Repetitively: Matt is part of an angry and confused mob who see themselves as abandoned and unappreciated. The only way they THINK they can efficaciously unhook themselves off that snag is to vent spleen along with a bit of blood-letting on unemployed folk.
Stop being a cunt on this one, Matt. It's only for your benefit—not mine.
And Pablo is absolutely batshit insane if he thinks the corporate media has created this mindset.
[/quote]
That's not what I'm saying.
And Pablo is absolutely batshit insane if he thinks the corporate media has created this mindset.
That's not what I'm saying.