Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Tory party conference


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,759 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 10:22 AM

Erm, excuse me Mr Osborne, but if you make unemployed people work a full-time job unpaid then how will they find time to job hunt, attend interviews and so on.

 

Also, does anyone think that the JobCentre staff will have any leeway in allowing people to skip such work to do things in life such as attend doctors, go to weddings, funerals, etc.  As it stands, people can get sanctioned for looking the wrong way at JobCentre staff.  Especially with Osborne saying they're going to be accelerating sanctions and removing appeals.

 

I understand the sentiments behind getting those who don't want to work working for their money but surely it's highly immoral to be making people work a full-time job for far less than minimum wage with absolutely no working benefits such as paid holidays.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#2 Ramite

Ramite
  • Coach
  • 835 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 10:44 AM

Just been reading about the help to work. is it full time I haven't read it ? Other options are daily visits to the job center or training. Seemingly.a good idea if you can work you should , but not sure how much use this will be. From what I've read these schemes don't really work .These sorts of statements are just a dog whistle for party season.
Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]


#3 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,830 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 11:06 AM

One interesting anecdote for Mr Osbourne to consider.

 

I own a recruitment business. Sadly the overriding opinion of the long term unemployed is that these people are untrustworthy and work shy. Their CV's were often a fabrication or a merging of truth and speculation and therefore they were considered unemployable. It wasn't until we investigated the background of one particularly interesting candidate that we discovered he had been advised by the jobcentre to stretch the truth a bit on his CV and extend his length of service at a particular company.

 

Therefore, my opinion somewhat differs from Mr Osbourne. The vast majority of people in these circumstances are vulnerable, impressionable people who are desperate to find work and will follow the advice of so called experts to improve their prospects. These people deserve to be paid appropriately for what they do and most crave the recognition of being valued in society. What they do not need is demonising or criminalising.

 

What Mr Osbourne really needs is a decent job creation policy but that would take far too much effort. It's easier to create a raft of policies that get the Blue Tops frothing at the mouth.

 

The minority that Osbourne has a right to question often flirt with the law, and have no desire to work. If he wants to deal with them then the cost will always outweigh the benefits.

 

The guy is a tool. He has no experience or knowledge of employment, education or training other than what he learns in the smoke filled drawing rooms of his ilk.



#4 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 11:42 AM

One interesting anecdote for Mr Osbourne to consider.

I own a recruitment business. Sadly the overriding opinion of the long term unemployed is that these people are untrustworthy and work shy. Their CV's were often a fabrication or a merging of truth and speculation and therefore they were considered unemployable. It wasn't until we investigated the background of one particularly interesting candidate that we discovered he had been advised by the jobcentre to stretch the truth a bit on his CV and extend his length of service at a particular company.

Therefore, my opinion somewhat differs from Mr Osbourne. The vast majority of people in these circumstances are vulnerable, impressionable people who are desperate to find work and will follow the advice of so called experts to improve their prospects. These people deserve to be paid appropriately for what they do and most crave the recognition of being valued in society. What they do not need is demonising or criminalising.

What Mr Osbourne really needs is a decent job creation policy but that would take far too much effort. It's easier to create a raft of policies that get the Blue Tops frothing at the mouth.

The minority that Osbourne has a right to question often flirt with the law, and have no desire to work. If he wants to deal with them then the cost will always outweigh the benefits.

The guy is a tool. He has no experience or knowledge of employment, education or training other than what he learns in the smoke filled drawing rooms of his ilk.


What a refreshing view from a recruiter!

I just heard Gideon call Ed Milliband a socialist. Joker.

As for making the unemployed work for benefits - I assume that that they will be paid accordingly?

#5 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,759 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:06 PM

One interesting anecdote for Mr Osbourne to consider.

 

I own a recruitment business. Sadly the overriding opinion of the long term unemployed is that these people are untrustworthy and work shy. Their CV's were often a fabrication or a merging of truth and speculation and therefore they were considered unemployable. It wasn't until we investigated the background of one particularly interesting candidate that we discovered he had been advised by the jobcentre to stretch the truth a bit on his CV and extend his length of service at a particular company.

 

Therefore, my opinion somewhat differs from Mr Osbourne. The vast majority of people in these circumstances are vulnerable, impressionable people who are desperate to find work and will follow the advice of so called experts to improve their prospects. These people deserve to be paid appropriately for what they do and most crave the recognition of being valued in society. What they do not need is demonising or criminalising.

 

What Mr Osbourne really needs is a decent job creation policy but that would take far too much effort. It's easier to create a raft of policies that get the Blue Tops frothing at the mouth.

 

The minority that Osbourne has a right to question often flirt with the law, and have no desire to work. If he wants to deal with them then the cost will always outweigh the benefits.

 

The guy is a tool. He has no experience or knowledge of employment, education or training other than what he learns in the smoke filled drawing rooms of his ilk.

Very valid points.  Unfortunately there are many of those in the recruitment industry who need a few prods on being reasonable themselves.  I took 3 months off in 2007 following major surgery to reconstruct my hamstring and I was given a few blunt rejections by agencies who thought I'd become unemployable because I hadn't worked for "so long".  Fortunately, I had the contacts to get myself working again quickly without them.  Just because someone hasn't worked for a couple of years does not make them unemployable if there's a good reason for that unemployment.

 

Neither does them reaching 60.  On virtually every contract I apply for with a new agency to me I get unsubtle questions trying to find out how old I am.  Once they find I'm 42, that helps bracket me in the senior professional bracket and make me easier to "sell on" to a client.  I know one project manager who is substantially better than I am, he worked nearly without stop for 20 years at the very highest levels but he has turned 55 and cannot get agencies to return his phone calls once he's on their system as "old".  Pension ages are increasing, we're expected to work for longer but the aging are widely and heavily discriminated against.

 

As you say, if the Tories were serious about fixing the problem then a decent job creation policy would be better.  As would an education campaign to address discrimination against those who are unfairly rejected for work they're very capable of doing.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#6 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,844 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:17 PM

Not that I am totally in favour of these sort of schemes, but its only fair to point out that they are used with some degree of success in places like Australia and Canada. I don't think it should simply be a "work" programme, but in Australia the unemployed are encouraged to do training and education courses which count as "working" in this context. I wouldn't be in favour of people simply being told to sweep the streets or whatever in return for their dole, but there is some merit in an agreement which sees people trying to improve their employability via additional education and vocational training.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#7 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,830 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:49 PM

Many of our towns and cites were developed to bring the work force close to the workplace. By removing the source of work we are left with simply a workforce. An un-movable body dependent on the state unless the state invents a new employment strategy or moves the workforce.

 

So the plan was to move the workforce by up-skilling them through more education opportunities and back to work programs. This was done in the hope people would move to find employment, suitably armed with a nice IT certificate, a degree in Forensic Sciences or a certificate in plumbing. So, after unprecedented funding for this training and at the ultimate point of frustration all you have left is to demonise this workforce for not bring pro-active? You've outsourced your IT, sold off the forensic science service and employed a load of Poles to do your plumbing.

 

The government has to develop a strategy that take into account all socio economic policies, including immigration, infrastructure projects and regional investment.

 

What we have seen is the immigration levels impact employability, infrastructure projects creating ghetto's of our town and cities and regional investment lining the pockets of quango's and think tanks.

 

Sort that out Mr Osbourne!



#8 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,830 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:54 PM

What a refreshing view from a recruiter!

I just heard Gideon call Ed Milliband a socialist. Joker.

As for making the unemployed work for benefits - I assume that that they will be paid accordingly?

 

Thanks. I think I'm fairly exercised by this topic because recruiters are demonised to the same degree!



#9 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,003 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:56 PM

Not that I am totally in favour of these sort of schemes, but its only fair to point out that they are used with some degree of success in places like Australia and Canada. I don't think it should simply be a "work" programme, but in Australia the unemployed are encouraged to do training and education courses which count as "working" in this context. I wouldn't be in favour of people simply being told to sweep the streets or whatever in return for their dole, but there is some merit in an agreement which sees people trying to improve their employability via additional education and vocational training.

 

Proper training and proper education - as opposed to CV writing courses - costs a lot of money and unless it's going to be a free school providing it the government we have is ideologically opposed to providing such things.  It would be a more useful idea than creating bizarre park-cleaning non-jobs just to make it look like we're tough on the causes of unemployment.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#10 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,830 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:57 PM

Very valid points.  Unfortunately there are many of those in the recruitment industry who need a few prods on being reasonable themselves.  I took 3 months off in 2007 following major surgery to reconstruct my hamstring and I was given a few blunt rejections by agencies who thought I'd become unemployable because I hadn't worked for "so long".  Fortunately, I had the contacts to get myself working again quickly without them.  Just because someone hasn't worked for a couple of years does not make them unemployable if there's a good reason for that unemployment.

 

Neither does them reaching 60.  On virtually every contract I apply for with a new agency to me I get unsubtle questions trying to find out how old I am.  Once they find I'm 42, that helps bracket me in the senior professional bracket and make me easier to "sell on" to a client.  I know one project manager who is substantially better than I am, he worked nearly without stop for 20 years at the very highest levels but he has turned 55 and cannot get agencies to return his phone calls once he's on their system as "old".  Pension ages are increasing, we're expected to work for longer but the aging are widely and heavily discriminated against.

 

As you say, if the Tories were serious about fixing the problem then a decent job creation policy would be better.  As would an education campaign to address discrimination against those who are unfairly rejected for work they're very capable of doing.

 

In the bad old days when it was easy (mid 2000's) there were many junior commando's thinking they were the dogs cahoona's earning massive bonuses. Those of use still around today understood and still understand the value of people to a business. It's not what your worth to me but what you're worth to my client.



#11 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,844 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:00 PM

 

Proper training and proper education - as opposed to CV writing courses - costs a lot of money and unless it's going to be a free school providing it the government we have is ideologically opposed to providing such things.  It would be a more useful idea than creating bizarre park-cleaning non-jobs just to make it look like we're tough on the causes of unemployment.


Agreed, there needs to be investment in the facilities to deliver proper training and education not just using the unemployed as some kind of casual manual labour pool.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#12 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,761 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:12 PM

I had a friend who was unemployed and had to go to the DWP  Job Club to try and get a job. They rejected his self-prepared CV because it was "too professional" and would deter potential employesrs who were looking for manual operatives.

 

An unemployed  lady in Luton said exactly the same on the telly today .


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#13 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,520 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:27 PM

I was sent to the "job club" a few years back. I left by mutual agreement after the second morning as by their own admission there was nothing they could offer to do for me that I hadn't already done for myself. Amateur doesn't begin to describe it. I was a forty year old with management experience who had just completed an IT degree and could run rings around each of the so-called "advisers".

 

Neither they, or the staff at the job centre had the slightest clue about my particular field of expertises - I may have well been speaking mandarin for all they understood when I tried explaining what I did. Good job I'm not on the dole now, they'd probably sanction me for looking for work in a field they'd never heard of and had no understanding of. :rolleyes: 


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#14 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,003 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:57 PM

 just incoherent guff.

 

Bless.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#15 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,830 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 02:56 PM

Isn't this aimed specifically at the long term unemployed?

If nothing, I'd say it gets people back into circulation and active.

It's a starting point that needs to be followed up with preventative measures to stop others falling into the same trap & keep those brought back into the world of work moving forward with more training & skills.

 

What circulation is this? The system is rotten and unfit for purpose. If Osbourne was looking at the whole then he'd spend less time worrying about a few thousand people milking the benefits system and he's concentrate more on his fiscal policy for generating opportunities for the majority, who by their own bad luck end up on hard times.



#16 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,761 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:41 PM

The Tories are getting jittery about losing support to UKIP. Hence today's threat to deselect MP's who advocated an electoral pact.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-24338158


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#17 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 04:06 PM

Erm, excuse me Mr Osborne, but if you make unemployed people work a full-time job unpaid then how will they find time to job hunt, attend interviews and so on.


...because it's only a 30-hour a week requirement. That leaves 10 hours a week for job hunting plus any they might like to do in their spare time. Does anyone seriously think that the long-term unemployed (9 months plus) do more than this?

Plus unemployment benefits plus council tax benefit plus housing benefit plus whatever else probably do add up what someone on a minimum wage job would get for a 30-hour week. Actually I find it hard to believe that the worker would not be substantially worse off.

Edited by Northern Sol, 30 September 2013 - 04:09 PM.


#18 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 04:07 PM

Isn't this aimed specifically at the long term unemployed?
If nothing, I'd say it gets people back into circulation and active.
It's a starting point that needs to be followed up with preventative measures to stop others falling into the same trap & keep those brought back into the world of work moving forward with more training & skills.


Indeed.

It's not easy being unemployed for more than a couple of months. Anything that gives you a reason to get out and about is a good idea.

#19 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,914 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 06:56 PM

I hate the Conservative party conference with a vengeance. Its understandable that the forum holds a discussion about a policy without understandinding the detail when the policy announcement itself is so badly made.

Mind you, I hate ALL party conferences!!!

#20 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,968 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 08:49 PM

.....sold off the forensic science service.....

 

I had a mate who worked there for a long long time, got made redundant a while ago, worked in Tesco for a bit now working in a completely different field. So many years of experience lost. 


28m391z.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users