To think that all this 'get the people on benefit to work' is less about cost saving for the economy and more about getting business owners slave labour?

(117 Posts)
Heroine Wed 05-Dec-12 13:01:40

I just can't help thinking, when I hear another daft greedy business owner claiming that 'work gives a social benefit' whilst advocating 16 year olds working for £2 an hour so that they can earn £50K a year plus from their small shop that all this low wage, internship and apprenticeship crap is just a way to further line the pockets of the relatively wealthy.

Also I had a big lecture from someone about how their business was doing badly, then I saw their massive house and two large guzzling cars whilst they have taken on three apprentices at £2 an hour - the same as one minimum wager! Its shocking.

Yanb

YANBU!

It's a convenient way of getting around the NMW really hmm

Bollocks, posting on phone!

Yanbu. I genuinely thought that getting those on benefits to work would be a good thing at first, and still think that it could be, but they have cocked it up so badly. I don't agree fully with you on the apprenticeships though. they need to be used with the ideas of getting the apprentice into employment at the end of it, providing experience and providing hands on education in the topic, not cheap labour. Lots of companies do use them for their intended purpose, though unfortunately many more don't.

takataka Thu 06-Dec-12 10:03:32

And, u believe companies are paid for taking on workfare people, are they not?

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 06-Dec-12 10:08:18

Apprenticeships are not the same as workfare, they are two different things.

I can see two sides to the workfare argument, but I haven't got a problem with apprenticeships being low paid, as long as they are actually apprenticeships. 16 year olds don't need to be paid minimum wage, as they should still be being supported mostly by their parents. Apprenticeships are meant to be about training and gaining experience in order to get a proper job at the end of them. If those things aren't happening, then it's not an apprenticeship, it's a job, and therefore it should be paid like one.

TwinklingWonderland Thu 06-Dec-12 10:13:23

Let's stop buying from multi nationals like Starbucks and amazon and support the small trader then.

CremeEggThief Thu 06-Dec-12 10:15:54

YANBU. It is completely wrong that people are being forced to work for less than the minimum wage, and that others are having their jobs put at risk too sad.

PessaryPam Thu 06-Dec-12 10:18:10

Well I'm a business owner and we have taken the decision not to expand and to employ as few people as possible so we have actually made the business smaller. We are high tech and when we need specialised skills we buy contractors in overseas, completely off shore. I can't wait to retire tbh. Fed up with GB anti SME attitudes.

To the poster who used the term "pocket money" have a biscuit

A fair days work for a fair days pay.

Pocket money? angry

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 06-Dec-12 10:19:28

Sometimes Starbucks is a small trader. They are owned in a franchise by small business owners, and they have to pay the same tax as everyone else. I find this whole Boycott Starbucks thing very unfair on them.

PessaryPam Thu 06-Dec-12 10:20:09

I got into my career via YOP in the 80s, Youth Opportunity Program, introduced by Margaret Thatcher. I worked for free for 3 months and was then offered a junior job there. Best thing I ever did.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 06-Dec-12 10:21:41

What's wrong with a 16 year old being paid pocket money while they are on an apprenticeship? They are still children, who should be being supported by their parents if they are in some form of training, which a proper apprenticeship is.

Obviously I don't apply this to actual jobs that are being disguised as apprenticeships, but apprenticeships can be a very good thing.

PessaryPam Thu 06-Dec-12 10:22:17

Actually not free was on equivalent of job seekers benefits for that placement but the employer was not paying. They were paying in as much as they had to devote staff time to getting me productive though, providing desk, computer etc. Just having a new person join is expensive and I don't think many realise that.

CrunchyFrog Thu 06-Dec-12 11:17:38

I'm currently working on just about living wage.

I get more in benefits than I would not working. Like, a couple of hundred quid a week more - due to childcare tax credit.

I can't see the sense in that. But I guess if wages went up, so would rents/ childcare etc.

YANBU, workers are being screwed by their employers at the tax payers expense.

(Oh, I pay about £30 a week in tax. Woop.)

Proper apprenticeships, yes ok.

But the term pocket money is so patronising. If they are old enough to be employed in any capacity they are old enough to deserve NMW.

Anything else is age discrimination.

Would you employ a pensioner and pay them "pocket money" and say its ok because they live in their daughters granny flat? Err no.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 06-Dec-12 11:27:11

An apprenticeship isn't proper employment though, it's different. There is no reason why it should have to be the same. Training people costs money, there is no good reason why that shouldn't be reflected in the pay an apprentice receives.

ConferencePear Thu 06-Dec-12 11:29:03

I think this recession is allowing the conservatives to start doing what they would really like to do - dismantle the welfare state. Watch out for the NHS.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 06-Dec-12 11:29:21

It's not age discrimination because the pay isn't linked to age. It's linked to the training and experience received.

That may best suit people who are young enough to still expect support from their parents, but people who are older aren't banned from doing them same if they want to.

Yes, an apprentice plumber or electrician perhaps, were the costs of training are substantial.

An apprentice retail assistant were training consists of ten minute till training, not acceptable.

YouCanBe Thu 06-Dec-12 11:45:21

YANBU.
It is both disgusting, and short-sighted.

I think it's a moral question - if you're sat in your huge house as a small business owner while you're paying your staff below minimum wage or 'training' wages or using workfare then in my opinion your business isn't successful.

Success should be judged by how you treat the poorest paid in your workforce.

I have nothing against people making money but if they make it at intolerable expense to their staff then I do object.

I do have a problem with large businesses like Tesco/banks making mass multi billion profit, that is money taken from their staff and their suppliers - I do not think that they are successful by my definition and it's really depressing when they are lauded as a success.

We need different measures of success in my opinion. Isn't there a statistic where the happiest employees have the least gap pay wise between the people at the top and the bottom?

rogersmellyonthetelly Thu 06-Dec-12 11:56:09

I don't understand the logic in it at all. So we have loads of jobless people wanting job. We have seasonal demand. Wow here's a great idea, we send the jobless to do the jobs for the companies that need them, but instead of the companies paying fair wages, the government will pay the jobless half of what they should be earning, which frankly the government can't afford, and the companies get free work and more profit.
Who the fuck had that bright idea?

EldritchCleavage Thu 06-Dec-12 12:27:11

Anti-SME attitudes?

If we had small and medium-sized businesses like Germany and Italy do: good industrial relations, excellent on-job training, family-run with good ethics, slow but steady growth and high standards, I'd be all for them.

But our bad industrial relations (fault on both sides, but to no small degree a side-effect of our pernicious class system) and very greedy, ruthless company directors have helped significantly to undermine our industrial base. Yet the business culture shows no sign of changing.

diaimchlo Thu 06-Dec-12 12:33:44

One thing to take into consideration is that these apprenticeships are not only offered to youngsters, they are offered across the whole age spectrum....

The whole benefit system is screwed to be honest all on ConDem propaganda and the mindless morons that actually believe their lies and misreporting of figures...... they have stigmatised every benefit claimant as a fraudster (the actual cost for ESA/DLA fraud is 0.05%).

The government is giving free labour to big companies, taking up seasonal jobs from people who would love to be back in the workplace full time, they cannot give an actual figure of how many of people on apprenticeships and Work Fare Programs have actually secured full time permanent work and now the sick and disabled are being forced into these programs or lose their benefit.....

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now