Back-to-work scheme breached laws, says Court of Appeal

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
The government should just refuse benafit payments then. They are under no obligation to pay them.


what a doofus!

then why are we paying tax???????????????????????????????????????

i pay for
1) benefit system
2) NHS

but these are were all the cuts are going....
yet private industry has more claim over my tax money...thats where the problem is


highlighting the cheats could be done in any industry
fact is there is always a pool of unemployed...the gov has forced them to do slave labour

but was it
1) a "real" decision...or are they preying on them?
2) or did cameron get a summer home in micronesia, brought for him by mr poundland?


"they are under no obligation to pay them"........where on earth do you sorry people here this BS!




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


dude

they also made it impossible for them to go Uni.

guess where all these exstudents are going to end up

working for free in tecos...

IF THERES IS A JOB...PAY THE PERSON

NO COEHERSION

big ass companies taking on free labour...via the gov.....im telling you...porche gifts everywhere, must be!



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I'm all for people on welfare being forced to work, but they should do public work, or else the private employers should have to pay the government for the work they get from people on welfare.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Well you are lucky to be in such a safe job that you don't have to worry about being unemployed. I imagine employees of HMV and Jessops felt pretty safe and resented their taxes going to those on benefits.. I'm sure many of their perspectives may have changed in light of recent developments.


Well said..


And not to mention the 3000 Barclays staff who have just been told they are now no longer required.

C...

HAHA Yes in 12 months we may see top bank managers sweeping the floor in PoundLand
, They are not trusted to handle the money at the checkouts.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
This is brilliant when you think about it.

So first, government proposes minimum wage. Sounds reasonable. Make sure people are paid at least a living wage. Further, we’ll tax people and businesses to pay for programs that will secure the welfare of those unable to work or temporarily between jobs. Again, sounds reasonable. Who could disagree? It’s about helping people.

Then, business say, “Well, there is cheaper labor in another country, we’ll send the jobs there.” Jobs in the country dry up. What jobs are left pay less. The economy tanks.

To boost the economy, the banks create more money. This causes inflation. The price of goods go up, the value of wages go down. The government raises the minimum wage, etc. Rinse and repeat.

Now, human nature being what is, some people are going to take advantage of this. Why work if the government will pay you for not working? So, the cry goes out, “If someone is on welfare and they can work, make them work!” Again, sounds perfectly reasonable. If some healthy lazy bum is scamming the system, put them to work.

So you give these people whatever jobs the government can come up with. Cleaning up highways, doing something to improve the community, whatever, just so long as healthy, capable, people are doing something.

As the economy continues to tank, more people become unemployed. People that can work, so, they should work. But, there are only so many community improvement jobs that the government can generate. Businesses, on the other hand, see an opportunity. The government has surplus labor, if they can buy that labor as cheaply as the foreign labor they have been buying, profit!

For the government, the surplus labor is a burden. They have to pay those people. Whatever money they can get for those people is a plus. So they sell the labor to the company that will pay the most for the labor. The companies get the labor they want to pay for, regardless of things like minimum wage, benefits, unions, or any sort of employee protection.

Wages for employed people continue to drop, as business replace more and more employed people with government labor.

Rinse and repeat.

In the long run, there will only be two types of jobs left. You can either join the military, or take whatever job the government offers to you. Either way, you work for the government for whatever they decide to pay you, in a currency that has a value determined by the the banks.

It’s times like this you really have to give the NWO the credit they deserve. If you can enslave and entire country using a system of credits called “money”, why not the world?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Actually, I am absolutely aghast that in this day and age, we have a government that has no problem with forcing poor people to work for no pay - my brave dear old grandads will be turning in their graves if they could see what they fought and died for.

We have a government made up of rich, public school toffs, none of them have ever known what it is like to be cold, hungry and broke - none of them have ever done so much as a day's 'work' in their lives and never will, but still get fat and live in luxury - and despite being filthy rich, they pay themselves more than minimum wage for their salaries and yet more for their 'expenses' on top of this. But it wants YOU to work schitty jobs and not get paid.

What really alarms me more about all this, is that many of you agree with it.

These are long-term unemployed people, government should be getting them off long-term benefits by forcing companies into paying them a living wage for working those jobs. But instead, it would rather send them 'chain-gangs' of unemployed people to go and work for nothing.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


Whilst you have a point about the Politicians and most never having actually worked a real job - Cameron went to Uni, did his Politics degree, then went straight into working as an aide for a Tory MP and has been in that circle ever since - it is worth pointing out that this is not the only scheme the Government runs.

Many on this thread have taken a worst case scenarios, extrapolated it to slam a whole programme that has actually had success stories (while simultaneously ignoring those) and also at the same time ignoring the other projects the DWP have to try and get people back into work, including Young people which has been a thrust for some on this topic...




Get Britain Working


We are making a transformational reform of the benefit system and introducing Universal Credit, to make work pay.

We are modernising the way Jobcentre Plus delivers its services – giving more responsibility to Jobcentre Plus advisers to assess claimants’ individual needs and to offer the support they think most appropriate, including access to a number of Get Britain Working measures.

The Work Programme replaces an array of employment schemes, pilots and projects , giving providers greater freedom to make judgements about how best to support jobseekers who need extra help.

There is now a greater focus on partnership working – Jobcentre Plus, providers, local authorities, employers, and jobseekers working together to find new solutions to unemployment.

There is now a focus on results: Jobcentre Plus staff will be more results-focussed, providers will be paid by results and incentivised to support the hardest to help.

In response to the challenge of youth employment the Youth Contract will provide extra help to young unemployed people to get a job.

Our mainstream provision is complemented by specialist disability employment programmes including Work Choice, Access to Work, which will continue to provide support for disabled people facing the most complex barriers to getting and keeping a job.

There are also a number of measures in place to support older people in choosing to work longer.

None of this will be done in a vacuum. Wider government will create an environment that encourages enterprise and sustained economic growth to help create sustained jobs and businesses.


The measures being used by the Government as as varied as giving help for people to start their own business, how to volunteer in the community and something that DPM Clegg came up with called the Youth Contract, which provides funding for jobs specifically for those under the age of 24 - something many here have complained about.
edit on 13/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I really object to my tax money being used to bolster the balance sheets of companies that specialise in low pay jobs.
The tories were the party that said tax payers shouldn't subsidise heavy industry that paid a living wage and kept whole communities in employment. ..yet the sort of companies that do get subsidies are the leeches that do nothing for society other than throw a few quid in kickbacks to the tories.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


That's a very skewed way of looking at the heavy industry jobs you speak of.. Back in the 70's and 80's, owing to the Unions, all those workers demanded more and more pay to the point it was simply daft to expect it to continue.

The workers, through their own greed and being mislead by even greedier Union bosses, priced themselves out the market. Had the miners, for example, not been led down the garden path by Skargill et al, many mines would have remained open, just at a lower volume of production - we were producing too much coal and it sat in mountains around the country, but they still demanded more pay for a product that had a falling value. It was idiocy of the most extreme form.

It's akin to me and my colleagues, upon hearing that 2 jobs out of 10 are to go owing to reduced workload, all standing up and demanding 15% pay rises...

Yes, Maggie and the Government should share some of the blame for what happened to our industry as well, but it wasn't all the Governments fault. The Unions and the workers have to shoulder quite a bit of the blame as well.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


We need politicians whom have had real life experience and whom have lived and struggled like we do, instead we have rich kids straight out of school holding a shiny new politics degree, most of whom probably cheated or bribed their way through it anyway.

They have never had to struggle through hard times, how can they attempt to put things right in this country for us regular folk, when most of them have never had any experience of anything but a wealthy and priviledged life and a school desk?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


When have they ever made things better..?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


Let's be fair - there are quite a few MP's who have led "real lives", but you do have a point as much of the established "party leadership" on both sides of the Commons is by these career politicians..

In an ideal world, I'd like it to be law that you should have at least 10 years experience in a real world job and not as an "aide" of any kind, but that would ever so hard to actually articulate in Law, let a long enforce.

But, at the end of the day, it is us that vote for these prats anyway - if more people actually voted like they should do and not for a party (you vote for a candidate not any party - Parliament doesn't recognise parties of any kind) we wouldn't have career politicians clogging up the system.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Nvermind.
On a side note 90% of MPs went to Eaton High School, for Elites like
edit on 13-2-2013 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Heavy industry ruined by unions is one of the biggest cons of recent history.
If you look at how often machinery was updated in that sector you'll see that countries like Japan Italy and Germany ran a 6 to 18 month cycle British firms were still using machines from the 60 s That's why productivity and quality suffered. Because people creamed off the profits instead of investing.
Sure union agitation didn't make it any easier, but strong union membership didn't stop Italy and Germany producing. Did it?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlindBastards
That’s an insane system - “30 hours unpaid work per week for six months” ? How did the sorry sack of sh!t who dreamt this scheme up remotely consider it to be legal or fair? This is disgusting, really.


We brits are gluten for punishiment. We put up with anything. We are up the creek without a paddle. We have a prime minister who says to the yanks"britain only played a bit part in the second world war" and the peodophile scandal was at risk of "turning into a gay witchhunt". Does he equate peodophilia with being gay?maybe thats bording school for you.
These people dont care for the citizens. Not only have they flooded the country with foreigners creating a divided country and creating unemployment but now they must work for nothing.
They are now after peoples houses with the introduction of the bedroom tax only to give those houses to the hoardes of immigrants who send there money back home. That is if you dont have to sell your house to pay for your care. Even after paying national insurance all their life. The immigrants have payed nothing while the indiginous foot the bill and sacrifice their families future.
The hospitals and schools are being privatised with causes standards for the patient/pupils to suffer. Which leads to more money being put into the hands of the evil profiteers.sucks.
The worse thing of all is that the people dont care.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


In the case of Germany (and many other EU countries for that matter) is many of them receive state support which often flouts EU law, while we stick to them. Siemens, for example, gets interest free "loans" and guarantees from the German state and recently they have signed an agreement that before any German worker can be laid off, they will shed jobs at their foreign operations, no matter whether the operation is profitable or not.

The French, for their part, often prop up industries with loans and grants under the EU provision of "protecting national interest" - we use this to safeguard defence industries, which is what it is meant for, while the French use it to prop up their economy in general. For example, EU law said we had to privatise and liberalise our Energy market, so we did. The French and Germans, however, retain state control and now all our power companies are French and German owned....

Good for the Germans, yes, but hardly sticking to the "free market" principles we like to push and upon which the EU is founded.
edit on 13/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


That's a very skewed way of looking at the heavy industry jobs you speak of.. Back in the 70's and 80's, owing to the Unions, all those workers demanded more and more pay to the point it was simply daft to expect it to continue.

The workers, through their own greed and being mislead by even greedier Union bosses, priced themselves out the market. Had the miners, for example, not been led down the garden path by Skargill et al, many mines would have remained open, just at a lower volume of production - we were producing too much coal and it sat in mountains around the country, but they still demanded more pay for a product that had a falling value. It was idiocy of the most extreme form.

It's akin to me and my colleagues, upon hearing that 2 jobs out of 10 are to go owing to reduced workload, all standing up and demanding 15% pay rises...

Yes, Maggie and the Government should share some of the blame for what happened to our industry as well, but it wasn't all the Governments fault. The Unions and the workers have to shoulder quite a bit of the blame as well. [/quote
Pay miners a decent wage and have low price energy or sack them and privatise and pay much higher bills..
I think you are very wrong. Where do you get your info?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

I'm all for people on welfare being forced to work, but they should do public work, or else the private employers should have to pay the government for the work they get from people on welfare.

there wouldnt be unemployment if 7 out or 8 jobs diddnt go to immigrants working for peanuts.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


It's quite freely available. Coal production in the 80's resulted in mountains of the stuff lying about - there was massive over capacity in the industry with falling global prices, so we couldn't even export it, all the while the Unions kept pushing for higher and higher wages, whilst at the same time fighting tooth and nail any attempts to reform the industry.

Yes, the Government wanted to close pits, but it was to consolidate the industry into the most productive and profitable pits and close the ones that weren't productive. You have to remember that the Coal industry, like every other heavy industry, was state owned from the end of WW2 and was not run with profit in mind, but just to provide jobs. This was not sustainable and by the 1980's, something needed to give.

The chap who was given the role of sorting out the Coal industry was the same guy who turned British Steel from a total money sink into the most efficient steel producer going, but this did come at the expense of job losses. Either industry is there to make something and turn a profit, or it is there to provide jobs and be a money sink for taxpayer cash. Which would you prefer?

It's also a bit rude to simply say "I think you're wrong".. I've gone to the effort of typing more than one line for you, why not do the same?

EDIT: It is also worth pointing out that not all miners supported the action of the Unions and actually agreed with the Government, so much so they broke away from the NUM and formed their own Union. It was very much a case of a bad but necessary situation being made a whole lot worse by the actions of militant Unions, who quite often ignored the wishes of their members.
edit on 13/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


In the case of Germany (and many other EU countries for that matter) is many of them receive state support which often flouts EU law, while we stick to them. Siemens, for example, gets interest free "loans" and guarantees from the German state and recently they have signed an agreement that before any German worker can be laid off, they will shed jobs at their foreign operations, no matter whether the operation is profitable or not.

The French, for their part, often prop up industries with loans and grants under the EU provision of "protecting national interest" - we use this to safeguard defence industries, which is what it is meant for, while the French use it to prop up their economy in general. For example, EU law said we had to privatise and liberalise our Energy market, so we did. The French and Germans, however, retain state control and now all our power companies are French and German owned....

Good for the Germans, yes, but hardly sticking to the "free market" principles we like to push and upon which the EU is founded.
edit on 13/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)


And how is subsidising minimum wage mac jobs with tax payers money any better?
My original point was that government subsidy of industry benefits society whereas subsidising low wage employment only benefits stock holders.





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join