Tory scum make lying, insulting and patronising response to workfare petition

(203 Posts)
ttosca Tue 29-Jan-13 15:44:06

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29356

It's just unbelievable. Who do they think they're talking to?

TheSecondComing Tue 29-Jan-13 18:27:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bowlersarm Tue 29-Jan-13 18:28:34

Sorry ttosca but can't take a thread starting "Tory scum" seriously. Are you 15?

scottishmummy Tue 29-Jan-13 18:29:54

were you socialist worker type at uni. op?berating folks what they should be angry about?
look lose the youse is all needing to wake up and smell the coffee preachiness
I think you expected everyone unanimously agree with you

TheFallenNinja Tue 29-Jan-13 18:36:33

God how boring, make a statement then attack anyone who disagrees.

Yawn

TheFallenNinja Tue 29-Jan-13 18:39:30

Seems your fight is with the government. I don't think you'll start the revolution here, today.

ironman Tue 29-Jan-13 20:53:40

As soon as I saw the word 'tory scum' I knew the poster was ttosca.
Can't you think of anything original to call them? For instance, dirty rotten scoundrels! grin

If workfare is to be compulsory then it should be work that benefits the local community. Why the fuck should multi-national companies get free labour? Any political party that supports this deserves to be called scum.

Public sector services have been virtually destroyed so why not give the unemployed chance to take up some of the slack where appropriate, to do something really worthwhile instead of filling the coffers of supermarket chains?

CloudsAndTrees Tue 29-Jan-13 21:39:58

ttosca, your posts really are laughable.

You have said twice on this thread that looking for a job is a full time job. It isn't. It might be if you are particularly inefficient and unproductive, but if you really need five days a week working from 9am until 5pm to apply for jobs, then then that likely to be the reason you don't already have one. And isn't there supposed to be a lack of available jobs at the moment? Surely if there are that few jobs, you don't need full time working hours to apply for all the jobs you could do.

Plus, it is well known that it is easier to find a job while you are in employment, so how does that fit with your theory that looking for a job is a full time job. Simple answer - it doesn't.

You are also being ridiculous (and probably offensive to some people) when you try to compare mandatory work activity with slavery. The last time I looked, no one was forced by someone else to claim JSA. And if you don't claim JSA, you don't have to do MWA. The same cannot be said of people who were genuinely forced into slavery. There are plenty of unemployed people who aren't forced into MWA. If there were, SAHMs all over the country would have a big problem.

I can understand your disagreeing with this policy, but really, you don't do a very good job of convincing people to take your point seriously.

nailak Tue 29-Jan-13 21:42:26

with the sahms it is there partners who claim and do the workfare, like i said my dh only got away with it as he knew his workplace advisor. and the job centre wouldnt let him do relevant work placement or skills courses, but wanted him to work in tescos.

ttosca Tue 29-Jan-13 22:02:11

Clouds-

You have said twice on this thread that looking for a job is a full time job. It isn't. It might be if you are particularly inefficient and unproductive, but if you really need five days a week working from 9am until 5pm to apply for jobs, then then that likely to be the reason you don't already have one.

Are we really going to debate how many hours per day it takes to apply for jobs to the best of your ability? Sometimes writing applications takes several hours. It is not feasible to work most of your day and then expect people to be efficient in finding jobs, in between eating, cleaning, showering, and other normal activities which people do after a day at work.

And isn't there supposed to be a lack of available jobs at the moment? Surely if there are that few jobs, you don't need full time working hours to apply for all the jobs you could do."

Yes, there is. However, you reasoning is flawed. There being fewer jobs doesn't mean you try less hard. It means you try harder.

Plus, it is well known that it is easier to find a job while you are in employment, so how does that fit with your theory that looking for a job is a full time job. Simple answer - it doesn't.

Very easily. When you're working full time, you already have job security, so you can apply for jobs in your spare time, and of course, you apply for fewer than if you were unemployed. You apply for fewer because a) you have less time b) you can be pickier.

Secondly, in many cases, these MWA placements are not helping the claimant get any experience, since most of the placements are very low level jobs like stacking shelves at Tesco. This won't help anyone with a degree or any previous work experience whatsoever.

Thirdly, the MWA has been shown to be useless in helping people find work. A freedom of information request has revealed (I can find the link for you if you wish - or you can do it yourself) that people who undergo MWA are not better off at finding a job 6 months down the line than people who do not.

The last time I looked, no one was forced by someone else to claim JSA. And if you don't claim JSA, you don't have to do MWA. The same cannot be said of people who were genuinely forced into slavery. There are plenty of unemployed people who aren't forced into MWA. If there were, SAHMs all over the country would have a big problem.

This is completely disingenuous. For those of us (most people) who aren't financially independent and have very little or no savings, it's either claim JSA or starve. It isn't a 'choice' to claim JSA. You either claim, or you don't eat.

CloudsAndTrees Tue 29-Jan-13 22:15:56

It is not feasible to work most of your day and then expect people to be efficient in finding jobs, in between eating, cleaning, showering, and other normal activities which people do after a day at work

Really? I'll let all the people I know who do a huge amount of voluntary work on top of their paid jobs that what they are doing isn't feasible then shall I? I'll also pass it on to anyone who works two jobs, or who has children to look after, or who has indeed looked for a job while working full time then right?

Very easily. When you're working full time, you already have job security, so you can apply for jobs in your spare time, and of course, you apply for fewer than if you were unemployed. You apply for fewer because a) you have less time b) you can be pickier.

How does that, or anything else you posted after it, lead you to believe that looking for a job is a full time job? confused

This is completely disingenuous. For those of us (most people) who aren't financially independent and have very little or no savings, it's either claim JSA or starve. It isn't a 'choice' to claim JSA. You either claim, or you don't eat.

Fair enough, but that still doesn't mean that MWA equals slavery.

If there are no jobs why arent the government encouraging companies to create jobs instead of paying them to create non paid placements? It just doesnt make sense.

If there is a job to be done, hire someone to do it and pay them the going rate. 30 hours per week on JSA is £2.36 per hour. Thats illegal.

I signed the petition.

stargirl1701 Tue 29-Jan-13 22:21:35

If the social contract including the contributory principle was still in force then you would be reasonable. It isn't though.

ttosca Tue 29-Jan-13 22:58:34

Clouds-

It is not feasible to work most of your day and then expect people to be efficient in finding jobs, in between eating, cleaning, showering, and other normal activities which people do after a day at work

Really? I'll let all the people I know who do a huge amount of voluntary work on top of their paid jobs that what they are doing isn't feasible then shall I? I'll also pass it on to anyone who works two jobs, or who has children to look after, or who has indeed looked for a job while working full time then right?

Most people can't do it, and in fact, don't do it. There is a reason there aren't more people who volunteer while work full-time, it's because they're tired and don't have enough time.
I'm not saying it's impossible to work and volunteer at the same time, but JSA claimants are supposed to be spending all their time and energy on finding a job. They're already made to feel like lying cheating scum for daring to claim welfare.

Making them work - sorry compulsory 'volunteering' - in addition to trying to find a job is only going to reduce their chances of finding a good job. We already know the MWA scheme doesn't help find people find jobs. Why send the unemployed to work for companies for free, thereby suppressing wages and further reducing incentives for company to actually hire and pay people?

Very easily. When you're working full time, you already have job security, so you can apply for jobs in your spare time, and of course, you apply for fewer than if you were unemployed. You apply for fewer because a) you have less time b) you can be pickier.

How does that, or anything else you posted after it, lead you to believe that looking for a job is a full time job? confused

When you're already in employment, it doesn't have to be a full-time job, because you already have job security, and most likely you're looking for another job because you want something that is more suited or 'better paid'. When you're claiming JSA, you have the free time to apply for jobs full-time. You also don't want to be unemployed, since JSA is even enough to live on, and the govt. makes you out to be a lying, cheating scum for claiming.

This is completely disingenuous. For those of us (most people) who aren't financially independent and have very little or no savings, it's either claim JSA or starve. It isn't a 'choice' to claim JSA. You either claim, or you don't eat.

Fair enough, but that still doesn't mean that MWA equals slavery.

Call it 'unpaid forced labour' if you like. Fine, it doesn't involve whips and physical abuse, but this sort of thing belongs to the 18th Century, not the 21st.

ttosca Tue 29-Jan-13 23:00:35

When you're already in employment, it doesn't have to be a full-time job, because you already have job security, and most likely you're looking for another job because you want something that is more suited or 'better paid'. When you're claiming JSA, you have the free time to apply for jobs full-time. You also don't want to be unemployed, since JSA is even enough to live on, and the govt. makes you out to be a lying, cheating scum for claiming.

Sorry, let me re-write that:

When you're already in employment, looking for another job doesn't have to be a full-time job, because you already have job security, and most likely you're looking for another job because you want something that is more suited or 'better paid'. When you're claiming JSA, you have the free time to apply for jobs full-time. You also don't want to be unemployed, since JSA is not even enough to live on, and the govt. makes you out to be a lying, cheating scum for claiming.

DeepRedBetty Tue 29-Jan-13 23:08:53

If any more threads like this appear I'm going to have to put Politics in the Hide from Active Convos list, like Baby Names and Style and Beauty.

OP, the 80's finished over thirty years ago, perhaps it's time you moved to join the rest of us. ATM you sound like that rather odd ranty girl that no-one wanted to be too close to in the Student Union.

ttosca Tue 29-Jan-13 23:11:10

What does the 80s have to do with anything? Has politics ended?

Darkesteyes Tue 29-Jan-13 23:11:34

eminemmerdaleTue 29-Jan-13 17:19:36

People who work - as in 'work' don't get a choice either - we do our job or don't get our salaries

You wont lose six weeks money if you call in sick for one day. So how you can even compare the two is beyond me.

usualsuspect Tue 29-Jan-13 23:13:52

I would have been ttsoca best mate back in the day.

Darkesteyes Tue 29-Jan-13 23:16:29
Darkesteyes Tue 29-Jan-13 23:17:32

From the same link.

A parliamentary answer from the ONS director general, Glen Watson, given in October last year, confirms that even if people were claiming jobseeker’s allowance, they could still be counted as employed.

He said: “Those participants [in government schemes] whose activity comprises any form of work, work experience, or work-related training, are classified as in employment. This is regardless of whether the individual is paid or not.”

Darkesteyes Tue 29-Jan-13 23:23:23

Lapsed Pacifist ive said this several times on MN but <sigh> it looks like i have to say it again.
Charities involvement with workfare is just as bad as businesses being involved.
E.g. the Sally Army can report someone for a sanction (which can happen if you phone in sick and its quite likely some are going to be ill as some of the ppl being forced on to workfare are on ESA) then you are sanctioned causing poverty and yet NOT MANY seem to see the fucking massive conflict of interest here.

ttosca Tue 29-Jan-13 23:24:07

Yes, that is one of the motives for putting people on MWA schemes. It makes it appear that unemployment figures are lower than they actually are.

The other motive is, of course, free labour for corporations and the effect is has on suppressing wages.

aufaniae Tue 29-Jan-13 23:28:47

Those who are arguing with the OP - why do you think this is a good idea then?

Seeing as the evidence says it won't actually help people get jobs, what's the point?

CloudsAndTrees Tue 29-Jan-13 23:54:15

Seeing as the evidence says it won't actually help people get jobs, what's the point?

See, now more discussion along those lines might convince me that work experience programmes are a bad idea.

I'd be interested to hear why it doesn't work, why are some people long term unemployed when some people find themselves out of a job but then find work again before these measures kick in.

What else should be done instead of this, especially to make those who are currently unemployable into people that employers want?

Is it really that much better to allow people to languish on JSA for months on end while doing nothing? Doesn't it at least help people who have been unemployed for 9 months or more to be in some kind of work environment?

Is anything else at all being done to ind out why some people don't get the jobs they apply for? Isn't it a good idea to have real life employers experience these people so they can tell them if or where they are going wrong and maybe offer guidance?

Why is it such a bad idea for young people who have been never been employed? Is having to work for the money you are given for four to six weeks really such a hardship, is it actually going to do any harm to that person?

How is it measured that these programmes don't lead to work? I mean, if someone does the work program and then finds employment with another company four weeks after their placement has finished, is it considered that the placement contributed to that individual getting a job, or does the program only count as working when employment is found with the same company that offered the placement?

There are lots of ways this discussion could go, but it never gets that far because ranting about slavery and such like just doesn't make for a constructive discussion.

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