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?

[Heroine]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying that people should be grateful for being exploited

I do agree that many people have too much of a sense of entitlement though. It's as if people think 'I should be able to have as many children as I want, have them educated to a high standard, and I expect them to be able to walk into a good job whenever they choose to leave education no matter whether I have paid into the system or not'.

The fact is that we don't have enough jobs at the moment, and it's debatable whether that's because we don't have enough work available or because we have too many people in the country to do the work that needs doing to sustain society.

I think it is entitled to just assume that you deserve a NMW job and then top ups to sustain you if you have few or no skills. There a too many people that fall into that category, for whatever reason, so people have to accept that if they don't have something worthwhile to offer an employer, there is no reason why an employer should want to employ them when there are plenty of others willing and able to do the same, or a better, thing.

I have already said I don't agree with people being paid £2 an hour if their work is worth more, but if their work isn't worth more because they have minimal skills and require a lot of supervision and training, then they have to do what they have to do to improve their own earning potential themselves without expecting it to be handed to them.

So a retail assistant should accept £2 per hour because they have minimal skills? Or a cleaner?

Sorry but that really is a load of shit.

Some people need a job to support themselves and their families. They may not have time to gain qualifications. Lets face it, there arent many opportunities out there anyway. And some people simply arent that way inclined. Should the less able in our country be paid a pittance?

And it has absolutely nothing to do with people who have more kids than they can afford. FGS does every thread have to turn into thst nonsense now.

So a retail assistant should accept £2 per hour because they have minimal skills? Or a cleaner?

That's not what I said. Are you actually reading my post, because it would help if you are going to respond to it.

A retail assistant or a cleaner is providing work that is essential to the business, therefore their work is worth at least NMW. But that only applies if they can do the job that is needed with minimal training. If they require a lot of training and supervision, as a trainee tradesperson would, then their work isn't worth that much in comparison to someone who has already been trained and is willing to work at NMW. If you take away the chance to earn a small amount of money and gain experience and training at the same time, then opportunity is reduced even further.

Yes, people need jobs to support themselves and their families, but if all they are ever going to be capable of is earning NMW with top ups, then they have to accept that they aren't going to have a great standard of living.

Society isn't there to just do favours for the 'less able' as you put it. People have to have something to offer society as well. Sometimes they do valuable work that is badly paid, and I think we need to concentrate on improving the incomes of people that do provide valuable work to society before we start creating work that doesn't need to be done just so that people with nothing to offer can have families. If people aren't 'that way inclined' then why should they expect a living wage for doing next to nothing?

Surely you can see that people who have nothing to offer but who still expect a good standard of living and to be able to have as many children as they want, do in fact have a huge sense of entitlement?

It seems to be you who isnt reading my posts. I have stated numerous times that I am not talking about trade apprenticeships eg plumber.

I am talking about these new "apprenticeships".

I have worked in retail, as both the trainee and the person providing training, and I can assure you that the skills required do not involve training of great cost to the employer.

In a society you will have jobs which require high skilled workers. These people have spent time and money gaining their qualifications and should be rewarded accordingly.

But in order for those peole to do their jobs effectively, people need to be available to do the less skilled jobs. Thesr people are no less valuable. Where would we be without cleaners? Or assistants in shops?

It is not entitlement for the less skilled to expect to be able to put a roof over their heads, have a family and a life.

Its one thing to say they shouldnt expect the living wage. But to say they shouldnt expect minimum wage is ridiculous.

£2 per hour is a paltry sum of money. I was getting paid just shy of that in 1992 to work in my school holidays in a fish and chip cafe. It was a terrible wage then and I left after the summer season and got a better job with better pay. That was 20 years ago and I was still at school (about 14 years old). How anyone in all honesty can say that paying someone £2 per hour is going to encourage people to see the value of work and reward is beyond me.

But it is not just £2 an hour, it is topped up by benefits.
That business that employs 3 people might not exist without a fourth person but maybe can't afford to employ another member of staff.
So that would be four people on benefit.
There is plenty of work that needs to be done but no money to pay for it.
If you are receiving benefit why shouldn't you do some of this work?
Some people do, my friend volunteered until she found paid work. Some of which was a result of volunteering.

Theres no money to pay for it because once it lines the pockets of the wealthy it goes offshore.

Benefits dont top it up either. A single person claiming £71 a week JSA would only get topped up to £71. Any earnings are deducted.

what else would they be doing all day?
get some decent qualifications so you don't have to work in a shop

kilmuir As has already been pointed out, we need people to work in shops, work as cleaners, etc., these people also deserve to be paid a decent amount of money.

We can't all be high fliers and society needs people that do every level of job.

What is your solution? Highly trained nurses cleaning hospitals? And who is going to sell you your bread and milk if everyone has decent qualifications.

Don't talk daft.

I think we need to concentrate on improving the incomes of people that do provide valuable work to society before we start creating work that doesn't need to be done just so that people with nothing to offer can have families. If people aren't 'that way inclined' then why should they expect a living wage for doing next to nothing?

Good heavens. How awful.

Wannabe, I already agreed with you that cleaners, shop assistants etc are essential to business and that's why they should be paid at or above NMW.

The problem is that even without stupid 'trainee' schemes or so called apprenticeships that aren't really apprenticeships, there still aren't enough of these low skill low pay jobs to go around. There are too many people that want them, and I think part of that does come down to people having too many children over previous generations.

The more low skill workers we have, the less valuable their work becomes. Employers will naturally keep their expenses as low as possible, and will often use the cheapest labour possible. I probably feel the same as you in that its unfair for a big business to keep all of its money at the top and not let any flow down to the people that are at the bottom or middle of the chain.

But on the other hand, if an employer can pay NMW to either choice of two employees, and one has more skills than the other bit they are both willing to work for the same, then why shouldn't the employer get the most it can for the same amount of money?

I agree that we need low waged workers, but as there aren't enough jobs for those that do have qualifications, then those people with qualifications and good skills are going to take work that they are over qualified for. This means that those who are unqualified and unskilled either have to sell their labour for less, or get themselves the skill and qualifications required to pay a decent wage. They are not owed a favour by the rest of us, it's up to an individual to do as much as they possibly can to increase the value of their work.

Why awful Eldritch?

If the only jobs available to people with skills and qualifications are low paid, then there is going to be less work available for those with no skills or qualifications. It's just common sense.

Those that have worked to improve their skills and to gain qualifications deserve to be paid more than people who haven't.

Ok. Send the unskilled to work for free then.

Or better yet, sling them all into workhouses.

Its £2 per hour now. Whats next? The NMW was set up to stop this happening but now this government is letting businesses get around it and promoting it as A Good Thing.

Also, why are the unskilled being expected to work for next to nothing? Who caused this recession? It certainly wasnt them. Yet they are bearing the brunt.

"before we start creating work that doesn't need to be done just so that people with nothing to offer can have families"

What on earth kind of jobs are you referring to there??

"what else would they be doing all day?"

jobsearching/applying/interiewing for a job that will pay them a wage they can actually survive on.

the thing is NMW is the minimum wage thought necessary for 1 hours employement in any role.

if people start a job and require training, yes they should expect to be paid less than someone already trained, but the less should begin at NMW. if the company want to recoup the costs of training someone (to make money for their business!) then write it into the contract that the employee will remain on NMW after training for a period of X months/years and that the initial employment contract is for a period of a minimum of X months or years.

i know quite a few people who were taken on as apprentices, paid less than £2 an hour for 2 years and then let go once their apprenticeship was done. so whilst they had received their training and given 2 years of work (trained for alot of the work for a good chunk of those 2 years) they were then made unemployed because the company didn't want to have to pay them an actual wage for the work they did.

"get some decent qualifications so you don't have to work in a shop "

yes because the highly qualified students leaving UNI with degrees are just walking into jobs aren't they?

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.

Well said Sonia.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.