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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
A little look at the true work your tax money is doing:



Unemployment benefits peaked in 2007-08 at £1.4 billion during the year.

Source


With a possible final bill of £8bn London's 2012 Olympics could be the most costly sports event ever, says a report obtained by The Observer. Why were the original figures so much lower?

Source


As of June 2010 UK costs exceeded £20bn for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Source


Libya conflict may cost UK £1.75bn

Source



More than half the planned £16billion high speed rail line from London to Birmingham will be buried in tunnels or sunk in deep cuttings as the Coalition attempts to appease critics of the project.

Source

When taken in the context above it can be blatantly seen that the Unemployment costs are a drop in the ocean compared to other expenditure. But as I said, the unemployed are easy targets.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by just1cornell0
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


i missed that about poundland getting subsidies for 'volunteers'... which is definately MEGA wrong.

BUT, i still feel its right that people on JSA should be made (yes made) to work. but it should be changed to, at locally run business' which would in turn help the local community & economy and in turn may help people get paid work. rather than bloating the pockets of these multi-million ££ companies.... oh the joy of Capitalism


Then so should the welfare kings and ghetto mamas too, they should, in fact be targetted first as not a dang one of em has ever worked/even looked for work...so how is this fair again??? Make the girl on welfare with 6 children work at that place, she's gonna fit right in, the graduates should be last on their list!

edit on 12-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: left out letters



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDemonUK
Full time hours for two weeks only!!!!! She is now also using tax payers money to try and avoid just two weeks work. How long will it be before the penny drops that after so long out of work, perhaps no one in her field actually wants her. TBH if she goes to court for something that IMO is trivial (ie just two weeks of getting out of bed early) then I'm not surprised employers don't want her.




But she already volunteers?
Who benefits from her doing these two weeks? Just poundland? Will they consider hiring her after the two weeks or is it just two weeks of free work for them?

This is a dangerous precedent.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


yeah definately.
Their the worst ones and poundland is too good for them, i'd get them spreading poop on field's in the middle of winter (no offence to any farmers out there).
Remember this is one case of a ex-student who has a degree on their high horse so has gone to the papers. whos to say they havent got the teenagers-who-wanted-a-house-so-got-up-the-duff working?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by just1cornell0
 


There's nothing wrong with people doing some work in the community while on benefits. The problem is expecting people to work full time hours for LESS than the minimum wage. Real sneaky that.
While we carry on bashing people as feckless layabouts companies are standing around laughing their tits off, sacking minimum wage staff and raking in the dough whilst they make the whole unemployment situation WORSE.

Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten the joys of the YTS scheme where you were expected to work the same job as someone who took home £200 a week, yet you only took home £26.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by blupblup
 


Look,if she was just signing on or hadn't been claiming JSA for long, then fair enough - this would be very unjust and wouldn't really make much sense.

However, after a YEAR of "searching" she still hasn't found a job, despite volunteering in her field. As such, if the government decide they want her to do different work experience then what is the problem? Her payment is her JSA.





But is she guaranteed work after this?
If not, then what difference does it make where she volunteers?


Let's say that this becomes a regular thing ok.... Let's say companies start getting free labour in this way, they have all of those on JSA working at poundland, tesco, morrisons, argos and wherever else the government decides.

Let's say they start doing 3 month placements with these companies.

All this will do is force more people out of work...

If poundland can get free workers from the government and money to train them, then why would they hire paid full time workers???

Companies will get wind of this scheme and before you know it, companies wont be hiring as much, they'll be using the free labour the government provides to staff their shops.

Not only are they getting free labour... they're getting PAID for people to work in THEIR shops...!!!!

This isn't just a case of lazy people who don't want to work being put to good use.

There are other issues at play here....
edit on 12/1/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
As a voluntary recipient of jobless benefits from the government she is basically a government employee. If she is told to go and stock shelves at a dollar store for her benefits, then that is what she has to do. Period.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I'm so gad that at last people are seeing this for what it is... I thought I was going mad when nobody else was getting it..


Thanks peeps.



Originally posted by EvanB
Are some of you guys just thick or plain stupid??

The girl was already volunteering..

The REAL scandal here is POUNDLAND USING TAXPAYERS MONEY FOR LABOUR SO THEY DONT HAVE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE GUISE OF THERE BEING A NONE EXISTING JOB AT THE END OF A WORK TRIAL!!!

If you was a company who was offered money and free labour wouldnt you not snap it up??







Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I am sitting here shaking my head at the ignorance I am seeing. She feels entitled, she's stuck-up, etc. I am just going to assume NONE of you actually read the article and objectively pondered the case. Would you suck it up and go to work for NO paycheck?







Originally posted by XXXN3O
Well I can certainly see how a business has trading results such as this, especially if they are getting workers that do not need to be paid a salary...

Poundland's profits up 122% (2008)

Poundland profit leaps 47 percent (2009)

Poundland's annual profits soared by 130% to £19.8m (2010)

Poundland profits up by more than 80% (2011)

Bear in mind that jobseekers allowance (that the woman received) comes in at £53.45-a-week. I cannot find how many hours she was asked to do but if it were a typical full-time work placement that would be the equivalent of £1.53 per hour. What is the point in having a minimum wage?

From a lot of the replies in this thread I think that the minute benefits are mentioned people simply see red and post tripe rather than actually looking at the facts.

Remember that for the first six months of unemployment the payments you receive come from your own tax payments made in the past.

Here is the link to the article, the opening post appears to have a broken link...

It is my human right not to work for Poundland: Graduate who faced losing benefit sues ministers







Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by just1cornell0
 


The government should not be subsidising Pound Land or any other private company with cheap labour. Now I have no problem with people being made to do some work in their communities, voluntary services and charities. Things taking a hit in these times, but to exploit people for private gain is morally wrong however you want to dress it up.

edit on 12/1/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by blupblup
 


Look,if she was just signing on or hadn't been claiming JSA for long, then fair enough - this would be very unjust and wouldn't really make much sense.

However, after a YEAR of "searching" she still hasn't found a job, despite volunteering in her field. As such, if the government decide they want her to do different work experience then what is the problem? Her payment is her JSA.





But is she guaranteed work after this?
If not, then what difference does it make where she volunteers?


Let's say that this becomes a regular thing ok.... Let's say companies start getting free labour in this way, they have all of those on JSA working at poundland, tesco, morrisons, argos and wherever else the government decides.

Let's say they start doing 3 month placements with these companies.

All this will do is force more people out of work...

If poundland can get free workers from the government and money to train them, then why would they hire paid full time workers???

Companies will get wind of this scheme and before you know it, companies wont be hiring as much, they'll be using the free labour the government provides to staff their shops.

This isn't just a case of lazy people who don't want to work being put to good use.

There are other issues at play here....


No, because in the long run that would not benefit the economy so would not be pursued as a policy by any government. This is a short term thing for those out of work for a while, not those newly unemployed.

I take the point you are making - it could indeed be seen as sinister but the practicalities would forbid this ever becoming practice long term.

Also, and let's be fair here, the work experience she was doing was not getting her any jobs. The government are basically forcing her to expand her skill set and that can only be to her benefit long term.

However, i will be watching this scheme more closely to see how it develops so in that sense she does deserve a slap on the back!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but i'm a tax payer and it's my money she is enjoying, i only have one thing to say..tuff. welcome to the real world, if you want someone to blame, blame the last administration, they told you there would be streets paved with gold once you graduated, what they forgot to tell you was, going to UNI was only to hide the true unemployment figures and to belittle uni degrees.

I have had to take jobs in the past i didnt' want because i like to have money, my own money and not government hand out.

Take a job you self entitled sponger, another product of the me me me culture bread under the last Administration



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FFS4000
 


In this day and age where the average weekly electric and gas bill is £30, I don't know anyone who "enjoys" £53 a week.
Some people live in lala land.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Why should graduates be last on the list? Now that really does make me mad. Does having a degree make you a better person? If so, then im a saint as i have 3 degrees in different subjects.

Whereas in reality i am no different to anyone else on the planet, quite rightly too in my mind. Her education level makes no difference. The fact she can't find work after a year and has relied on the state instead should actually be telling her she needs to pull her finger out and stop relying on what, in effect, is the charity of others in order to survive.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
No, because in the long run that would not benefit the economy so would not be pursued as a policy by any government. This is a short term thing for those out of work for a while, not those newly unemployed.

I take the point you are making - it could indeed be seen as sinister but the practicalities would forbid this ever becoming practice long term.




Normally I would agree that this would never become a widely used practice... But nowadays, I'm not so sure.
We have been seeing people's freedoms and rights eroded constantly over the last few years.
Being detained without charge, having your house/flat searched or being stopped and searched without cause.

Trusts me... this may seem like a harmless scheme to get those "work shy lazy B-Stards" back to work... but it's what the implications are that's worrying... it's what's lurking behind it, It's what kind of a precedent it sets.
This is merely laying the groundwork for something else to come and build on top of it.







Also, and let's be fair here, the work experience she was doing was not getting her any jobs. The government are basically forcing her to expand her skill set and that can only be to her benefit long term.




That's because there aren't a lot of jobs.
There are roughly 5 people for every job... and in sectors like retail and admin/clerical, more like 30 or 40 people going for every job.

There is nothing to say that this woman is not trying all she can to find work and nothing to say that she hasn't even been applying for work that does not match her skill set.

All the government are doing is helping out private companies by paying them to take on the jobless... and the workers don't get a wage and don't get any offer of a job.

There is something wrong with this.


Also many retailers now only offer 16 hour contracts, not the usual 37.5 hr contracts.
They have more staff covering the same hours, many staff on 16 hr contracts..... all these "free" workers will do is keep more people out of work.
It's not that shops will staff their businesses entirely with these freebies.... but let's say every shop has just one... that's one job in every shop.... one less person in paid employment, getting benefits.

Not good.
edit on 12/1/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Can I ask all the people on this thread who are in the UK how much do the welfare ghetto mama's take home per month, and further, are they expected to take "voluteer" jobs or even look for work? Are they sanctioned for anything? This is a serious question.

Because to me this whole thing seems slanted/ discriminatory against a certain class of people, people with intelligence and a degree and probably White...just my impression it seems to me they're trying to break down a certain group's hopes and kick em while they're down, jmho.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


I understand your point but surely say cleaning part time for £120 per week is better than claiming JSA? And she would still have time to do volunteer work at the museum. Win-win for her. But instead of this, she moans and hires a lawyer claiming her Human Rights have been abused which is a gross and offensive over exaggeration.

She cannot possibly claim there is no work at all to be had - visits to the Jobcentre prove that to be untrue. There is plenty of part time work available all around the country. It may not be the best wage but it is better than claiming the dole at the end of the day.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Why should graduates be last on the list? Now that really does make me mad. Does having a degree make you a better person?.


Yes, yes it does, because it shows 1)initiative, 2)intelligence, and 3) Absolutely NOT a lazy mentality, WTH has a welfare ghetto B**** At all done except birth 20 babies by as many fathers????
It takes a lot of effort and hard work to get a degree, it shows the very opposite of a lazy nature. Even taking the hit of student loans...trying to better oneself instead of laying about collecting money and spreading legs to birth more bastard children.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
one thing the article doesnt metion is if she lives with her parents or has a council house (which would be paid for by the government\taxpayers too).

my opinion would be if she is living with her parents then why the hell doesn't she have a part-time job as well as volunteering at the museum.
if she lives in a council house then she'll be getting more than JSA anyway.

it shouldnt be all take and no give



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


I do not even know where to begin with logic like that.

What you are advocating then is a many class society? Or you should be limited by the amount of education you have?

Also, why the obsession with single mothers? Who mentioned them in the first place?

edit on 12-1-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by blupblup
 


I understand your point but surely say cleaning part time for £120 per week is better than claiming JSA? And she would still have time to do volunteer work at the museum. Win-win for her. But instead of this, she moans and hires a lawyer claiming her Human Rights have been abused which is a gross and offensive over exaggeration.

She cannot possibly claim there is no work at all to be had - visits to the Jobcentre prove that to be untrue. There is plenty of part time work available all around the country. It may not be the best wage but it is better than claiming the dole at the end of the day.




That's fair enough... if we want to just talk about whether she should get a job or whether she's trying hard enough or whether doing ANY job is better than claiming JSA.... then that's fine.
This thread (and I would imagine her reasons for seeking legal action) is because of the way she is essentially being forced, held over a barrel, to go and work for nothing in a shop that will not offer her a job just because the government has a business deal with them.

This needs to be fought and I hope she wins.

If she doesn't then the scenario I laid out may well be the reality in 5 years time.

No companies will hire... so people are just forced to work for free.
edit on 12/1/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Can I ask all the people on this thread who are in the UK how much do the welfare ghetto mama's take home per month, and further, are they expected to take "voluteer" jobs or even look for work? Are they sanctioned for anything? This is a serious question.

Because to me this whole thing seems slanted/ discriminatory against a certain class of people, people with intelligence and a degree and probably White...just my impression it seems to me they're trying to break down a certain group's hopes and kick em while they're down, jmho.


For a start I find the generalised labelling of women on benefits as "Ghetto mama's" highly offensive... In this country there is a witch hunt going on whereby anyone who is out of work, or has had to fall on benefits to help raise their children are assumed to have the ethics, brain and are as much use as a turd.

Furthermore what makes you deem anyone with a degree as a class above? I've known more than my fair share of graduates that have managed to scrape a degree yet are thick as a plank.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join