Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think the nations children are worth more than 1.90 an hour

85 replies

IceBeing · 17/02/2015 13:29

Dear Tories,

The reason that there are 18-25 year olds out of work is not that young people don't want to work, it is that unemployment is at over 2 million.

You stuffed up the economy with your discredited austerity shit, now you want to employ our children at less than half minimum wage to make up for it?

AIBU to actually genuinely hate the PM?

OP posts:
chocoluvva · 17/02/2015 13:38

Nope.

Let's faff around trying to save a few quid by squeezing the young people - they don't vote so it serves them right anyway.

Best not antagonise the super wealthy eh? We don't want to lose the 'trickle down effect on the economy'.

LongDistanceLove · 17/02/2015 13:40

Nope not at all.

kilmuir · 17/02/2015 13:41

of course the labour twits did such a fab job with the economy

chocoluvva · 17/02/2015 13:41

Blush - just realised I'm following you around on MN agreeing with you Grin

juneybean · 17/02/2015 13:43

Are you talking about apprenticeships or have a missed something? [Confused]

molyholy · 17/02/2015 13:43

YADDDDNBU. He is pure evil. No fucking idea about the real world. He boils my piss

Original poster
IceBeing · 17/02/2015 14:10

So the latest Tories plan means that if you are 18-25 and have been out of work for more than 6 months then you are forced to work for the government for 30 hours a week, for your 50 odd quid in benefits.

I wasn't sure it was possible for something to be actually more shit than workfare but this is certainly getting close.

These benefits likely cost less altogether than MPs avoid in tax....that's social justice for you!

OP posts:
DinosaursStillExist · 17/02/2015 14:20

Genuine question. Can this work be considered 'experience' on a CV? Would employers look negatively on this if it were listed, and if so, why? Does it not show a continued attempt at work ethic despite being unable to find more substantial employment?

LurkingHusband · 17/02/2015 14:22

Genuine question. Can this work be considered 'experience' on a CV? Would employers look negatively on this if it were listed, and if so, why? Does it not show a continued attempt at work ethic despite being unable to find more substantial employment?

If someone has shown they will work for £1.90/hour , why on earth would an employer waste money paying them more?

dementedpixie · 17/02/2015 14:30

if these jobs need doing anyway then why not employ people to do them for a decent wage?

LurkingHusband · 17/02/2015 14:37

if these jobs need doing anyway then why not employ people to do them for a decent wage

I refer you to my previous point. Why pay anyone anything, if you don't have to.

The only upside of this, if it happens, is that it will start to creep upwards, until you get people posting here saying "I supported the governments policy, but now I'm being made redundant, and my job is going to someone on benefits."

We're not headed to a fascist state. This is 1970s Russia.

DinosaursStillExist · 17/02/2015 14:49

I understand that it would lead to future employers trying to take the piss with these people, and I think it's ridiculous to enforce live on an income that wouldn't put food on the table. I just wondered if it was feasible that they (18-25s) could actually use it as a positive to show that they've damn well tried to work even on dire incomes in order to gain experience? Would employers not rather take on someone that's worked for little than someone that could've but didn't?

It's also very likely that I'm being extremely naive about it all and most employers would see it as an opportunity to pay minimum wage for maximum output because the potential employee has tried to show motivation.

sliceofsoup · 17/02/2015 14:52

The only upside of this, if it happens, is that it will start to creep upwards, until you get people posting here saying "I supported the governments policy, but now I'm being made redundant, and my job is going to someone on benefits."

And by then it will be too late.

LurkingHusband · 17/02/2015 14:53

And by then it will be too late.

When they came for the workshy
When they came for the obese
When they came for the junkies
When they came for the feckless
When they came for the jobless
When they came for the childless

editthis · 17/02/2015 14:54

He is pure evil. Oh, come on. I don't like any of this either, but there's a time and a place for hyperbole.

LurkingHusband · 17/02/2015 14:56

I understand that it would lead to future employers trying to take the piss with these people

That's a tad optimistic. My view is it will lead to current employers taking the piss with their existing workforce.

Why does Tesco need to pay anyone £6.50, when the local job centre will send them people for free ?

Original poster
IceBeing · 17/02/2015 15:33

I totally agree with the idea that you could just pay young people minimum wage to work in the community. That would be fine by me.

It would still be so cheap as to be dwarfed by the average tax avoidance scam.

OP posts:
JudgeRinderSays · 17/02/2015 15:57

If you want to make this point why are you referring to them as children.It doesn't help your case and patronises the young people.25 is certainly not a child!!

LurkingHusband · 17/02/2015 16:03

JudgeRinderSays

25 is certainly not a child

Well, you'd think ...

I'm of an age when I can remember that your parents income for a student grant was assessed up till the age of 25, unless you could demonstrate at least 3 years independent living.

And I vaguely recall David Cameron suggesting that 18-25 years should be expected to live with their parents if they couldn't afford to live on their own.

"Child" like "Crime" is an arbitrary definition when it comes to politics and law.

PtolemysNeedle · 17/02/2015 16:06

So as they can't offer real jobs when there isn't money there to sustain them, what should young people who have already been out of work for six months be doing?

Can you think of a better use of their time, or do you think that having a job is a human right and the government should provide one for everyone no matter how unemployable they are in the real world?

Original poster
IceBeing · 17/02/2015 16:11

what do you mean the money is not there? That is total nonsense. IT is less money than MPs avoided in taxes last year.

OP posts:
Heels99 · 17/02/2015 16:13

18-25 year olds are not children!!!

Original poster
IceBeing · 17/02/2015 16:14

Its more of a when your children grow up don't you think they would be worth more than 1.90 an hour....

I don't think 25 is a child (usually) so don't treat them like you are giving them pocket money.

Someone interviewed on the radio had 3 kids to support and was doing training, whatever volunteer work he could to try and get into the work force.

And the governments response is - well you haven't found anything after 6 months so now you are working for us 30 hours week for pocket money!

Totally disgraceful!

OP posts:
Original poster
IceBeing · 17/02/2015 16:15

Also I am still my parents child, even when I am grown up aren't I?

OP posts:
TheCatsFlaps · 17/02/2015 16:16

The parallels with Nazi Germanyin the 1930's is staggering. What's next for Cameron? Build us some autobahns?

Swipe left for the next trending thread