It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unemployed lady seeks legal advice over human rights issue.

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


If she was worried about finding a job in her field, she shouldn't have studied Geology.

Also, why doesn't she try looking for a job in another area, where Geologists may be needed? Or, go work in a lab as an intern. Or, go get some training in a vocation? There are so many options...

Human Rights suit? Seriously? "Oh no, I have to work at a dollar store for my gov't check, this is cruel and unusual punishment." Give me a break.

Government aid is OK to claim, but a work experience job with the "commoners" (for the same money) - unacceptable!

People these days.

edit on 1/13/2012 by ottobot because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jiggyfly...However, it seems like a bad use of human resource to take her from a job in her field for a spec job at a retailer.


Is there more to this story somewhere, because everyone keeps talking about her being taken away from a job in her field.

Which job is this? The museum job? The job in, to quote myself earlier, that bastion of geological science, the "Pen Room Museum of writing and pen trade memorabilia"?

I've read through a few versions of this story but I don't see anything about a job involving geology, only that she had a speculative hope to work in a museum.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Here is the link:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Basically, she wanted to volunteer at a museum and receive the unemployment check. She was given stipulations that she had to do job training to continue to receive her check.

She was not getting paid to volunteer, was not getting paid to work at Poundland. Difference? She liked one and not the other.
edit on 1/13/2012 by ottobot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by McGinty
I wonder how many great artists and academics who have enhanced society and our species over the years would never have done so if they had instead been forced to work mind numbing jobs because the masses wouldn't support them over the inevitable in-between stages of their worthy pursuits.


Just out of interest, how long do you think these welfare systems have been in place?!?


In the UK it officially began shortly after WWII, in 1948 i believe.

The point you may be making is that we've had artists and aspirational historical characters long before the welfare state began.

But think about it, were there really very many? As a percentage of the global population, per generation, i think not - in fact there were very, very few. And such figures are now 'legends' - the subject matter of literature, song and cinema etc.

The rest of humanity lived hand-to-mouth without the means or wit to ask, "Please Sir, i want some more…."

Famous Artists for example would employ skilled painters to work on paintings for which these tradesmen received no credit and only a pittance of the fee the Artist was paid for work. They toiled anonymously and died in anonymously. They certainly hadn't transcended the gap between their birth and the wealthy elite because they were never in a position to express their own opinions and beliefs. Instead the masses were told what to think by those who'd always had the wealth and wanted to keep it... ALL!

Just a handful of anomolies for each epoch managed to climb the ranks in spite of the establishment. Perhaps now, from our distant perspective there seem many as we look back at the whole of history. But only really until the post-war birth modern politics has there been a means of subsidy for the aspiring artist, writer, lawyer, or anyone who wishes to transcend their birth into education and one the professions.

Since the welfare state began the UK has produced countless artists, innovators and world class professionals whose background is humble and otherwise without the means to nurture their talents. Because of the small help provided by welfare they climbed to places where they could tell us all how the world looked to them - we are now able to see in abundance how the world looks to people who started out just as humble as us, but are now somewhere we've never been. And they often say it looks good, "Come and join me - it's possible!"

So, yes there were a few from the underclasses who slipped through past the guards into the holy of holies - the hidden world of opportunities. But by comparison to our modern times, where many millions now have a means to attempt the perilous crossing thanks to the welfare state, that previous number is so very small.... But just enough for the establishment to wave in our faces as they say, "See, these poster-boys of times-past made it across - you do have opportunities! Now stop complaining and get back in your hovels before we call out the militia and have you imprisoned indefinitely for treachery and terrorism..."








edit on 13-1-2012 by McGinty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by McGinty
 


Makes sense.

In this case, though, the job in question was for a term of two weeks. Ten business days.

Not quite going to make or break her fame.
edit on 1/13/2012 by ottobot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ottobot
 



Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by McGinty
 


Makes sense.

In this case, though, the job in question was for a term of two weeks. Ten business days.

Not quite going to make or break her fame.


The tories have to start somewhere with this new (and at the same time ancient) concept of forced work. Once we get used to it, they'll keep extending the time period until it finally makes sense to make these jobs permanent - at least that's what they'll tells us we all want via the MSN.

How far is it then until jobs are allocated to us from birth? Surely that's the ultimate goal of a wealthy elite who wish there to be no threat to their wealth.




edit on 13-1-2012 by McGinty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I am not going to point on this case, to say if she's right or not.
Being unemployed myself in the past, I know that everyone in this situation is having a distinct way to face it; it's not a simple mental process but a very complex one, involving many variables including but not limited to the person's character, the ability to see the things from the correct perspective and so on and so forth.

However, I am amazed by the number of people here, on ATS, who are just emanating judgements over others they don't know nothing about, nothing more than what Daily Fail is telling them.
Calling another person names, throwing rocks on her, making harsh statements, having an attitude like they are the owners of the Absolute Truth and all others are just too stupid to understand... this is what I see in this thread.

Again, I'm not judging that lady; it isn't my right to do it, since I don't know her.
Maybe she's right, maybe she's not.
But to yell in an almost hysterical manner "We are paying for you!!!" and waving the fist on her, yuck...


Honestly, I am disappointed - not that would count, indeed - by the quality of some people on ATS. "Denying ignorance", indeed, but no one can do this by poking the other in the head - figuratively speaking.

It is been said that "the medium intelligence of a crowd is equal to the lowest in that crowd".

Pity.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by McGinty
 


That's a bit of a stretch there.

She is claiming government money in lieu of an earned paycheck, under the pretense that she cannot work.

She can work, she just does not want to work in the available jobs.

She is not being "forced" into anything. A stipulation of receiving the money is that she must take a small job training position.

She does not have to continue receiving the government aid if she does not want to follow the guidelines set forth by the governing party.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I worked as a Civil Engineer for about 10 years and then got laid off.

I filed for Unemployment to help me out until I got another job.

I had to go in for interviews with a counselor. Since I didn't find a job in the first few weeks , she brought up my entire employment history and suggested that I search for jobs in the food industry. I had worked as a dishwasher while I was in college.

I didn't think this was a civil rights violation, I just thought she was stupid. I did find another job in Engineering.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by shansen
 


Agreed.

The vicious dog eat dog - attack mode that was institutionalized by the powers is so often displayed in this supposed place of higher thought its enough to make you sick.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by McGinty
 


That's a bit of a stretch there.

She is claiming government money in lieu of an earned paycheck, under the pretense that she cannot work.

She can work, she just does not want to work in the available jobs.

She is not being "forced" into anything. A stipulation of receiving the money is that she must take a small job training position.

She does not have to continue receiving the government aid if she does not want to follow the guidelines set forth by the governing party.


I hope you're right and in fact the government wouldn't dream of using this as a means of reestablishing the firewall between rich and poor. Sure they have our best interests at heart as much as their own over fed progeny. If we stop the tax that bridges the firewall, we stop progress putting the fire out.




edit on 13-1-2012 by McGinty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by shansen
 


I do agree, it depends on your personal experiences on how you'd see this.

I have also been unemployed. I started my own business instead of gathering unemployment, simply because I felt that I would benefit more from being a freelancer in my field than waiting around for job opportunities. I worked for a couple of years on my own business while simultaneously looking for a steady job. I eventually found a great job, which I enjoy immensely. I also still have the income from my business.

However, since I have children, I would have taken any job I could have if I had needed to. I'd have worked at a dollar store, fast food restaurant, whatever I had to do. If I'd had no dependents, I would have gotten a part-time or overnight job while I was looking for work the rest of the day. Not a big deal to me.

I have also had to do work experience jobs when I was younger. I did them because I realized that if I wanted the money, I'd have to meet the conditional requirements. Not a big deal to me.

But, then, I also had jobs throughout high school and college. I tend to work for my money, not depend on others to give it to me. Not a big deal to me.
edit on 1/13/2012 by ottobot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
If the Job Centre offered you a job using your tongue as a rich mans toilet paper you would have to take it. So much money is wasted by these morons and this is a perfect case in point. So there's two voluntary positions open and they want to push her into the irrelevent one? Why are people in this thread moaning about her not taking the short bus job and not moaning about how utterly rediculous it is that thousands of pounds worth of education is being thrown out of the window due to bureaucracy? Some poeple cant see the woods for the trees. Now if she had turned down a paying job then it might be a different story.

edit on 13-1-2012 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


What bothers me is that she's suing because she was required to take the other job to receive her unemployment check. As if she should have received the unemployment check just because she'd signed up for it.

One position was voluntary, unrelated to her unemployment case. The other was a stipulation of her unemployment case and used as an on-the-job "experience exchange" for her unemployment check.

Stocking shelves and eating feces are not exactly on the same level.

If she had been offered the two positions and then forced to choose the less prestigious one, then it would be a different story. This is not the case.
edit on 1/13/2012 by ottobot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ottobot
 


If she had already found a position herself then they should support her, not drive her into a completely unrelated field. Thats how its suppose to work.


On another and perhaps more relevent point; If she found the museum position herself but the Job Centre offered her the poundland job then of course they are going to want her to take the one they offered because this lets them massage their unemployment figures. On paper they would have 'technically' put an unemployed person into work thereby justifying their own existance. Its the same with any form of training. While you are on a tax funded training program you are not considered unemployed. The training itself is unlikely to get you a job, I know that, but it helps make the numbers look good and wastes copious amounts of tax payer wedge. If they dont spend it, they lose it.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ottobot
 


What's also not the case, is what you detailed. Let's get the full story and the real reason there is legal grounds for this case.

Part of her claim was the scheme in which the Job Center set up these supposed "work shops" teaching people valuable "skills" with the promise of "long term employment" .

That "workshop" was really a group of people down on their luck being exploited by the dollar store to pack and stack shelves with no compensation.

WHY can no one SEE that part?

Let me break it down for you:

You're unemployed. The governement says "let me help you come to this open house".
You go to the open house in your best interview clothes.

The "open house" is really a mud pit where you make bricks.

When you are done they say "don't call us, we will call you".



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidohno

"LABOUR". Jesus christ. It's people like you who contribute to the failings in society. How is sweeping the floor and stacking cans at poundland labour? Do some rearch on Asian sweatshops or the slums in India... that's labour. I can't believe you are defending some stupid little girl who's been funded through University and got a degree (not hard these days, any idiot can get a degree) and now whilst scabbing from the UK taxpayer is refusing to do anything in the process unless it's in her field. LABOUR!?!?!? You're having a laugh. Doesn't matter if it benefits the private sector or not (would be better if she perhaps cleaned the streets or something, but again she'd probably cry about that) - she is LAZY and the process is LAZY and the system is LAZY AND VOID.


Thought you could do with a definition of the word labour.
"The aggregate of all human physical and mental effort used in creation of goods and services. Labor is a primary factor of production. The size of a nation's labor force is determined by the size of its adult population, and the extent to which the adults are either working or are prepared to offer their labor for wages."

Source



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


The problem is that the museum position was not a job. It was a volunteer position. Anyone can volunteer at a museum, there is no expectation of pay when you volunteer.

Nobody would volunteer at a grocery store with no expectation of pay.

She was not being asked to volunteer or work unpaid at the store. She was to work at the store to gain work experience, in exchange for her unemployment benefits.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidohno

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by kidohno
 


You never know in the current economic climate, how secure your job is. More and more people are loosing their jobs and there are less and less job opportunities available. YOU could be next. Lets hope that never happens , but if it does I hope people don't accuse you of being a lazy scrounger.


Myth. There are plenty of jobs available, if I lost my job now (I won't) I could easily walk into at least 10 other jobs, some in the same field, some in a different field. These jobs might be higher paid or lower paid than my existing one, but I can sure tell you now... I have never, and will never, claim benefit from the government or anyone else.

That's the problem with our society as a whole today. Not just the UK, but world wide.

STEP UP, AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE YOU A LIVING.

EDIT: Just to add. There is high unemployment because people are f*****g lazy and as per the example in the Daily Mail with this moron "Cait" - people are letting their ego determine where they work.
edit on 13-1-2012 by kidohno because: (no reason given)



Lol, Ignorance.
Exactly What do you work as my love?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ottobot
 


Its still unpaid. It should make no difference which one she chose as far as the Job Centre is concerned. Work is work is work. Its fairly black and white here. They didnt like the fact that she didnt take what THEY had offered her. Part of the argreement you make to get unemplyment benefit is that you actively seek work, She did exactly that.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join