Advanced search

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.

Darkesteyes Sat 08-Dec-12 17:07:00

AmerryscotSat 08-Dec-12 08:13:15

Presumably these apprenticeships are for those people who can't get any other job, mainly through lack of qualifications or experience?

If they can compete in the open job market, they aren't being forced into an apprenticeship.

Working in a shop is about a lot more than using a till, for which I am sure the training is more than 10 minutes. It's about time-keeping, appearance, communications skills, attention to detail, efficiency, etc. These transferrable skills require training, development and feedback from the employer.

Amerryscot 9 years ago i got a job at Boxclever. (a now defunct tv rental business) i worked in one of their shops. I had to learn a till yes.... but i also had to learn their computer programme so i could do rental contracts (the shop had a till and a computer ) and you often had to multi task with both at the same time. Do you know how long it took me to learn and be trained up to do it........THREE WEEKS!

Heroine Sat 08-Dec-12 16:06:36

Some points:

1. Are you seriously benchmarking against the minimum wage to judge the contribution of workers to the business?

2. If minimum wage is the wage that should be paid to the most unskilled jobs with the highest number of available workers, why is the minimum wage still paid to many jobs that require the employee to have more about them than no skills at all.

3. Business owners can easily manoeuvre what is salary into profit in order to pay less tax

4. Some business owners say 'how can I make my employees feel part of the team, rewarded and motivated' other say 'If I can get this sucker legally to work for nearly nothing, and get the government to pay me to do so, I am cleverer than that sucker because I can rip him off, so I deserve the money'.

5. I don't think large employers making billions profit a year that shareholders are taking away are really 'struggling business owners'

6. Its clear however you put it that these schemes are about subsidising the business, not the worker.

7. That the net result is that the worker is disadvantaged, less likely to learn the skills he/she needs to progress, can't have spare money so is limited by a cycle of dependency to work rather than by a cycle of motivation and achievement.

8. That long term this is foolish because if too many individuals or households are paid only subsistence wages, then the economy becomes too reliant on food and household goods as there is little expenditure on anything else

9. So who benefits the most from low waged apprenticeships?

10. That's right, the supermarkets, whose shareholders from the top five are taking about £15billion out of the economy at the top end every year.

11. Which represents 1.5 million minimum wage (over 18s) workers - i.e. half the jobless.

wannabedomesticgoddess Sat 08-Dec-12 15:57:15

These placements arent just being aimed at young people though.

A neighbour of mine has to do an unpaid placement in a charity shop. Hes in his thirties.

Yet, I cant apply for jobs I could do easily because I am 25 and most of the jobs are in the youth employment scheme.

The whole jobmarket is a shambles right now.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 15:48:13

It makes me chuckle no end when hard facts = thread killer.

All those people who bleat "exploitation" don't know where to look.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 10:39:40

Let's get some facts about NMC:

£6.08 per hour for adult workers (21+)
£4.98 per hour for 18-to-20-year-old
£3.68 per hour for under-18s who have finished compulsory education
£2.65 per hour for apprentices under 19 years old or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

So, if your typical 16 or 17 year old can get a job on the open market, they are only £1.03 better off than someone of the same age who brings nothing to the table. A pound an hour doesn't seem bad for remedial education leading to recognised qualifications.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 10:33:01

What was youth (16 - 18) unemployment like, and how was it tackled?

wannabedomesticgoddess Sat 08-Dec-12 10:28:48

That companies had to pay nmw to everyone, unless it was a recognised apprenticeship which provided a trade.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 10:21:42

Was it OK?

What was OK?

wannabedomesticgoddess Sat 08-Dec-12 10:20:31

Why was it ok before then?

Because we had a government which upheld the principle of nmw.

This government is undermining it,because it feeds into their theory that the poor are scum and business owners are superior.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 10:15:28

They will want someone who is "work-ready" if they are to pay mnw.

If they have to provide remedial education, why should they pay more? They can get plenty of people to fill these jobs with only a minimal induction.

wannabedomesticgoddess Sat 08-Dec-12 09:59:06

Why shouldnt they pay National Minimum Wage? Then people who have got skills can earn a living wage as a reward for having those skills, and the unskilled can still support themselves.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 09:48:56

Most people leave school with the minimum of transferrable skills. There are, however, a sizeable number who do not and need to learn them on the job. If an employer has to do what should have been done at home or school, why should they pay double the wage?

wannabedomesticgoddess Sat 08-Dec-12 09:10:41

Transferable skills which would be learnt in any job do not make something an apprenticeship.

A structured programme of practical on the job learning, supported by theory, which leads to a qualification at the end, is what an apprenticeship should be.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 08:52:24

The minimum wage for a 16/17 year old apprentice is £2.65 per hour, and they work a minimum of 30 hours - so earn £80 per week.

notactuallyme Sat 08-Dec-12 08:43:13

Op your last post is a bit confusing. Do you mean they are self employed and that they are putting false expenses through so their profit is low, or do you mean they are directors of a company and taking a low salary? In either case, cars etc don't go through as a lump sum, a proportion is as a capital allowance, reduced by personal use.
I also thought that workfare was a 2 pound contribution to the benefit, not that the person only receives 37 hours at 2 pounds? Altho actually, wouldn't that be the equivalent of jsa? (71 pounds a week?)

AnnaRack Sat 08-Dec-12 08:30:36

If the job the "trainee" is doing was previously being done by an employee on afull wage then of course it's exploitation.

Amerryscot Sat 08-Dec-12 08:13:15

Presumably these apprenticeships are for those people who can't get any other job, mainly through lack of qualifications or experience?

If they can compete in the open job market, they aren't being forced into an apprenticeship.

Working in a shop is about a lot more than using a till, for which I am sure the training is more than 10 minutes. It's about time-keeping, appearance, communications skills, attention to detail, efficiency, etc. These transferrable skills require training, development and feedback from the employer.

I can see the value on giving employers an incentive to take on youngsters who have nothing on paper to offer.

My teenagers have to pay to get their qualifications.

TwinklingWonderland Sat 08-Dec-12 07:29:45

Bloody hell OP I think I'll set up my own business if its as simple and profitable as you say! More to the point, why don't these skilled and able apprentices set up their own businesses if they are so capable and it's so lucrative?

This is a free country with lots of opportunities, something we should be very grateful for, have a look at many parts of the world where there us genuine slave labour and you may realise how lucky we are.

Heroine Fri 07-Dec-12 23:35:58

You do know don't you that many business people who claim to be taking nothing from their business are doing that deliberately to keep their wages (drawings) low so that they can also claim working tax credits. Good employers keep drawings low by paying staff bad ones call big cars and domestic property business expenses so that instead of paying the 40% tax they should, they only pay 20% corporation tax on their 'profits' and no tax on their 'business purchases'.

Note that someone running their own business can be given help for their earnings, be granted apprenticeship money that pays then, and then the apprentice can claim money to re-subsidise themselves. Business owners are getting handouts from far more directions than the unemployed or 'unskilled'.

There is no requirement that young people on £2 an hour 'apprenticeships' recieve any training other than being on the job.

There is also a fallacy going through this discussion that people on low wages are automatically those without skills or abilities. If that were true, it would be an easier world. IN fact many people on low wages have skills that are above the job, yet are trained in that particular job because all employers are different. Training plus job STILL means that that work is worth more to the employer than they are paying the staff - that is the purpose of employing them. It is just outrageous that people are effectively not running successful businesses, they are running unsuccessful businesses part financed by the poor and part financed by the government. ITs disgusting.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Fri 07-Dec-12 15:58:32

agree wannabe. if someone presents themselves to a place of employment and undertakes the job set out to them they deserve to be paid a fair wage and in this country that wage has been set at NMW. it does not matter that there may be 40 other people capable of doing the job, it isn't madbid where the job goes to the lowest bidder (or who will work for the least amount). NMW should be the lowest starting point possible for anyone in employment.

EldritchCleavage Fri 07-Dec-12 14:07:03

Interesting that none of these economic arguments tend to get applied to the middle classes.

wannabedomesticgoddess Fri 07-Dec-12 13:48:44

They might not be owed a living. If they cannot get a job and they do nothing to change that then ok.

But if they get a job, they are owed a fair days pay for a fair days work.

We cannot lower wages because demand for jobs rises. If we do that we are de valuing the whole workforce, skilled or not.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Fri 07-Dec-12 13:42:51

We need people to have children, but we don't need people to have children and then bring them up so that they have nothing to offer.

People have every right to have children if they want them. They also have every right, and every responsibility to provide for them themselves without expecting their right to have children to become the responsibility of other people.

Santa, your point has hit the nail on the head. If highly qualified individuals are finding it hard to get work, then those who have nothing to offer need to up their game. They are not owed a living just for being.

It is every individuals responsibility to make themselves as employable as possible, because in times like this when unemployment is high, those people with no skills to offer are reasonably going to be bottom of the pile when it comes to getting employment.

wannabedomesticgoddess Fri 07-Dec-12 13:33:15

Well said Sonia.

Also, we need people to have children. And we dont have the right to decide who is worthy of it.

SoniaGluck Fri 07-Dec-12 13:30:03

* I think part of that does come down to people having too many children over previous generations. *

Oh, the temerity of the lower orders for having children. Whatever next?

Honestly, for all the accusations of 'entitlement' aimed at the low-paid or people claiming benefits, I am beginning to believe that the truly entitled are those who want to employ workers but at the minimum they can get away with and let the government top up the wages. And also those who earn well but don't want to pay taxes that help those less well off.

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: