Advanced search

Iain Duncan Smith really is an arse isn't he?

(204 Posts)
MaryMotherOfCheeses Sun 17-Feb-13 17:16:37

"The next time somebody goes in - those smart people who say there's something wrong with this - they go into their supermarket, ask themselves this simple question, when they can't find the food they want on the shelves, who is more important - them, the geologist, or the person who stacked the shelves?"

There is so much wrong with this that I can't even begin. [cross]

Rhiannon86 Sun 17-Feb-13 18:34:23

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

ouryve Sun 17-Feb-13 18:36:17

I'll not repeat the language I used when I heard that report on the radio. "Patronising twat" was just the beginning of it.

TheCrackFox Sun 17-Feb-13 18:36:26

"Do you really think supermarkets could function staffed mainly by workfare people who would only be there for a few weeks?"

Wouldn't actually put it passed them TBH.

Why should my taxes subsidise their business?

plonko Sun 17-Feb-13 18:37:28

Erm Rhiannon, she was 'paid' £53 a week to work full time. If I had not been able to claim my £53 a week for 6 months I wouldn't have been able to get a full time job. After one year earning a salary I paid back nearly £3000 in tax, after claiming roughly £1200 in jsa. This is our benefits system working as it should. What the fuck is wrong with that?

ttosca Sun 17-Feb-13 18:38:59

Out of a party of vile shits, Ian Dunscan Smith shirley it the nastiest vile shit of them all.

I do hope he is forced to resign in the next few weeks, but I very much doubt that will happen.

We have a chancellor who may be taking us in to an unprecedented triple-dip recession, and has put the UK economy in among the worst performing of all G20 countries:

And Osborne's job is as secure as ever.

Rhiannon86 Sun 17-Feb-13 18:41:00

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Rhiannon86 Sun 17-Feb-13 18:42:32

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

badguider Sun 17-Feb-13 18:44:14

"work experience" should ALWAYS be voluntary and it should always for those who will get something from the experience that they do not have.

There are people who have spent time not in education, employment or training in their youth and lost the habit of being somewhere on time and committing to a regular routine and working hard. There are also people who have had addiction problems or been in the criminal justice system and not experienced work. And people with health and mental health problems who do not have a history of proving they can hold down a job. These people should be encouraged to take work experience opportunities with incentives.

A recent graduate with a decent degree and who is doing voluntary work in the field they need experience in is NONE of these things and can be paid JSA for a short period to allow them to get on their feet. I worked as an office temp before getting my first graduate job, but in this economic climate with so many highly qualified aministrators out of work I'm not sure those opportunities exist for a graduate who can touch type.

plonko Sun 17-Feb-13 18:44:43

And the problem is that workfare was sold as a plan to train people and improve their job prospects. It does neither, instead only serving to devalue the jobs people are paid to do, and feed into the workers vs. shirkers rhetoric the Tories are so fond of.

Branding jobseekers as shirkers is just a vile way for the government to shit stir whilst they dismantle the welfare state at massive cost to the taxpayer.

MoreBeta Sun 17-Feb-13 18:45:15

Rhiannon - it has nothing to do with not liking the Tories. I voted Tory, I work for money. That is what a job is. Working for money.

This scheme is wrong. Full stop.

ttosca Sun 17-Feb-13 18:45:38

A few facts about Workfare:

* Some people are being forced on Workfare when they have been unemployed for a time period which is the national average. In other words, it's not just the long-term unemployed who are being put on Workfare.

* Workfare does not increase the chances of someone finding a job. It has been empirically shown that those on Workfare fared no better (in fact, did slightly worse) than those who did not participate in Workfare schemes.

* Workfare not only provides free labor for private companies, but, as a result, reducing the chances of the public finding paid work, since companies are reluctant to hire when they can get labour for free.

* Workfare not only reduces the number of paid jobs, but has a depressive effect on wages for the remaining paid jobs.

* Companies are furthermore being paid to take on Workfare placements, so they have a further incentive to take on free labour.

* Dozens of charities and companies have already pulled out of these Workfare schemes after being publicly named and shamed.

You can find out more info here:

domesticgodless Sun 17-Feb-13 18:45:41

Nonsense, Rhiannon.

The point of workfare is to a. massage the unemployment figures (did you know that every workfare claimant forced into a useless placement is actually taken off the unemployment rolls?) and b. to provide government 'partners' with free labour.

Graduates and school leavers do not require 'training' in shelf stacking and till work. I am not sure that many people do. During my university holidays I worked nights chucking parcels around at the Royal Mail. I was paid for this work and no one trained me.

Skilled graduate work will now usually require months or years of unpaid 'internship'. IDS's odious policy of forcing young jobseekers straight onto workfare will ensure that only nice rich kids get to do rich-person jobs because the pleb kids will be blocked from going anywhere in the careers everyone wants: they'll be sweeping floors in Poundland.

It is utterly disgusting, and apologists for it need to get a grip and wash their brains out with soap. Or something more caustic :D

MoreBeta Sun 17-Feb-13 18:48:02

The other thing this scheme does is undermine low paid workers. If a firm can get 'free' workfare staff then it has no incentive to employ or pay existing employees in part time and minimum wage jobs.

The ultimate logical end point of all this is that firms sack everyone on minimum wage or part time grades and just use workfare staff.

domesticgodless Sun 17-Feb-13 18:48:06

New Labour started workfare and welfare reform in general (although the seeds were sown by Peter Lilley in the Thatcher years) but the Tories have embraced it with a level of repulsive (and incompetent) zeal which is repulsive to see.

The utter incompetence of the policy is demonstrated by the vast millions of taxpayers' money being thrown at workfare 'partners' such as A4E versus the complete failure to convert workfare placements into actual long-term work.

domesticgodless Sun 17-Feb-13 18:48:31

Argh double repulsive in one sentence :D not good. But double repulsive is right for this lot

Rhiannon86 Sun 17-Feb-13 18:50:47

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

ttosca Sun 17-Feb-13 18:50:48

> "Why should my taxes subsidise their business? "

> How much value do you think they are getting out of the workfare workers? The point of the scheme is to give people experience of work.

They can get quite a lot of value - especially in sectors where there are lots of low-paid workers like in supermarkets. Instead of hiring 12 labourers at £7 hour (if you're lucky), for £12,000 per month in total, you can 12 labourers for free.

The point is not to give people experience of work. The point is to provide free labour for companies, to disincentivise people from claiming JSA, and to fiddle the employment figures: people on Workfare are not classified as 'unemployed' according to the government.

That's why the unemployment figures are 'surprisingly high' amidst the worst economic performance since the Great Depression:

a) Thousands of Workfare people are not classified as unemployed

b) Thousands of people have shifted from full-time secure jobs to part-time insecure jobs.

ttosca Sun 17-Feb-13 18:52:07

> I just get sick of people whinging and whining about life not being fair, instead of just getting on with things and being prepared to work hard to get on in life.

Work hard, yes. Work for free, no.

Sorry, but that isn't any sort of meritocracy. It's not a 'fair days pay for a fair days work'.

It's not 'lazy' to expect to be paid for work. It's basic and integral to human dignity.

ttosca Sun 17-Feb-13 18:54:07

DWP assessment of workfare: It doesn't work.

A DWP commissioned study has found that the Mandatory Work Programme has 'Zero' effect on getting people into work and may in fact increase people's chances of being on long term benefit.

In the study, which compared the outcomes between more than 3,000 MWA referrals with 125,00 non-referred jobseekers, they also concluded that the scheme had zero effect in helping people get a job.

"The results show that … a MWA referral had no impact on the likelihood of being employed compared to non-referrals," the 62-page report said.

Analysing the different groups of unemployed people over a five-month period, the study found: "Overall, the benefit impact over the first 21 weeks equates to referrals being off benefits for an average of about four days more than if they had not been referred." This rose to eight days after sanctions.

But it added that, those being sent on mandatory unpaid work "returned to benefit on average more than the comparison group".

Researchers also found that between May and November 2011 more than 1,600 had their benefits cut for up to six months for either refusing to start a placement or leaving it before it finished. One in five of those who didn't start MWA were sanctioned.

Grayling immediately rubbished the study as being 'out-of-date' and representative only of 'teething problems' in the first three months of the scheme.

Still, when even the DWP thinks Workfare is shit...

MoreBeta Sun 17-Feb-13 18:56:09

It only takes a minimal ampunt of brain power to work out the consequences of this scheme.

Lets say a firm is given two choices:

a) employ an unskilled and unqualified worker on minimum wage to stack shelves; or

b) employ a graduate level worker for free, pay no employers national insurance and and get paid an extra sum by Govt to take them on as well.

What does the firm do?

It employs the graduate for free of course and the unskilled worker goes jobless and still claims benefits. The net result is the firm makes more profit and two people remain claiming Govt funded benefits.

How stupid is that!!!?

ivykaty44 Sun 17-Feb-13 18:58:17

At Christmas supermarkets take on untrained staff for a few weeks to work during the busy Xmas period for a few weeks

So it would seem employing people for a few weeks even if they are untrained is viable

Imagine getting those workers for free

It adds to all the workers that are subed by government tax credits

Share holders will be kept happy with subed wages bills

Knowsabitabouteducation Sun 17-Feb-13 18:58:22

I really really don't get the outrage.

If someone is getting out-of-work benefits, and a company is willing to give work experience, what is the problem of marrying the two?

It takes people out of the "no experience" and "no reference" trap.

Even without government benefits, gaining work experience can only be a good thing. It gives the employee a reference (vital for many jobs) and something to write on their CV. It means that they know how to get to work on time, dress appropriately, are sufficiently subordinate, understand a corporate structure, etc.

As a mum of teens, it seems to come around every year about work experience and "take your daughter child to work day". Middle class people seem to value this, even though it is one big hassle. I do believe that DS1's 2-week Y11 work experience really strengthened his UCAS personal statement. He wasn't paid for this and actually out laid rather a lot (see-yut and peak-time rail fares) But he is pulling in the dividends now.

He'll breeze into permanent employment without taxpayer help. How good is that?

ttosca Sun 17-Feb-13 18:58:43

> ttosca you don't like the Tories very much, do you?

No. I think they're vile and sociopathic. I really do. They are a bunch of reactionary ideologues who would return Britain to the social conditions of the Victorian era if given a chance. They really have no understanding of the hardship or suffering of how the majority live.

> Do you think the countries current plight is all their fault, or do you think that Labour, and a fair proportion of the British people have a part to play as well?

If you mean the economic situation, then I also blame labour, yes, but not because they spent too much on public services (they didn't, and that wasn't the cause). They contributed to the disaster by deregulating the financial institutions of the UK.

We're going through a global economic depression, which Labour only played a part through its implementation of neo-liberal economic policies.

Contrary to the Tory narrative, it's not because of Labour spending that we're in the situation we're in now. If that were the case, only the UK would be in trouble. The fact is, our global economic system is completely out of control and needs radical reform.

ttosca Sun 17-Feb-13 19:00:18


> I really really don't get the outrage.

Then you're really not paying any attention to what is being written.

moondog Sun 17-Feb-13 19:01:31

I love IDS and believe that many young peopel have an inflates sense of self too.
But I do feel queasy about the thoguht of people undertaking 'work experience' for peanuts in firms which are raking it in and who are already efffectively subsidised by the tax payer in the way of tax credits.

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