to expect employers in this country to have some morals?

[nametaken]

Have they no shame. Are they not embarrased about employing people on minimum wage thinking, oh what the fuck, they'll get topped up by tax credits anyway. Meanwhile, the big fat shareholders collect their bonuses.

Just feeling really angry about all this at the moment. Saw an news report last week that the government is considering giving employers £2500 to employ a person off the dole queue or off benefits, meanwhile, what about all the "returners to work" like me that haven't been receiving any tax credits are gonna be seriously disadvantaged.

No surprises for guessing who employers are gonna give the job to when choosing between a returner with no bonus or a person with a £2500 sweetner attached.

They are sooooooooo fucking greedy.

The proposal that you are so upset over is a suggestion made by the Tories, rather than the Government (unless I've missed a seriosu change of heart by the Government - I know that they do nick the Tory proposals from time to time).

Worth dropping an email to your MP if you are concerned.

What is the minimum wage there for if no one was to be on it? I don't quite get that bit.
And what do you mean by a returner? A Mum going back to work after a break?

By returner I mean a SAHM returning to work once her children are older.

And I think it is a bit harsh to brand the employers as being greedy. It is not as if they want this proposal. Bear in mind this initiative is coming from politicians who want to see a reduction in the number of households surviving on benefits. When the overall number of jobs in the economy reduces then government policy ends up changing. For the last decade or two the pressure has been to ensure that for couples with children both parents can work. When there are are far fewer jobs then incentives will changes to ensure that at least one parent can work.

And it is merely a proposal. Not policy, not law.

I agree, your second point causes some issues for disadvantaged job-hunters who aren't on the dole. Not sure what can be done there though - should no one get any assistance?
Your first point is a bit problematic though. I don't think companies consider whether their employees get tax credits or not, they would look at the going rate for whatever the job is they have going. If it was your business would you pay more? Plus, shareholders only get a return on their investment (not bonuses and they can lose money too) and the company (and all the jobs) would not be there if no one invested in them, and no one wants to own a business that doesn't makemoney - why would they?

What on earth is the point in getting the benefit queue reduced but spending the same amount of money in bribing employers and toping people up with tax credits. It's just moving people from one list to another one.

Fair enough, employers didn't ask for this initiative but minimum wage is not the ONLY wage - it's OK to pay more, not illegal or anything, Jeez.

So you think it's right then, that SAHM receive no help to get back into the employment market

It's not the SAME amount and it is a one-off payment.
If it was your business would you pay more than you had to for someone to work for you?

We have this system which is like a monopoly game. The aim of the game is to make money and there is nothing in the rules about doing it morally. The rules effectly punish any company that doesn't make the most profitable choices.

I don't like it, but it's no use expecting the companies to fix it. We need to elect a government that will change the way the game works.

As for paying companies to take on long term unemployed I think there was a labour plan like that, but I don't know if it got anywhere.

There was a recent idea about putting unemployed to work for their benefits. Any work they did (unless you just made them dig holes and fill them in again) would replace someone who was working for minimum wage.

Bubbaluv I certainly don't think no-one should get assstance, I think everyone should.

I'm just having a moan today. Capitalism stinks unless you're rich.

On your last point, I think it's a really tough employment market and there are so many different groups who would like assistance. The gov needs to try to prioritise and I think they (whoever has made this proposal) have decided that getting people off the dole will be the most popular with the broader population.
Do you think no one should get any help?

If you help everyone, then it's the same as helping no one - everyone gets the same.

Yes, if I had my own business I would pay more than minimum wage. Who with any morals would pay so little? No-one can live on it.

Plus, it's keeping women down, keeping them in low paid jobs with tax credits, knowing they have to take the job or they'll get in trouble with the benefits agency.

You wouldn't have a business very long I'm afraid. The employment market may be tough but it would be a lot tougher if businesses all went broke because they started acting like charities. It's a sad fact I'm afraid. That's why we need to have a minimum wage!

OK, first of all, if such a proposal was ever adopted, then it would be as a temporary measure, to manage an economy in recession.

It isn't in force yet. There is nothing stopping you returning to work, other than the fact that right now far fewer companies are recruiting due to the dire economic climate.

For the last decade or so there have been more jobs than people who have been capable of doign the jobs. So much money has been poured in to education, in helping parents to return to work via tax credits, and by allowign high levels of immigration.

When we face the issue that there will be far fewer jobs than people who are capable of doing them, then different incentives will be used.

If the incentives clearly end up in discrimination against women, then that is clearly a bad thing, and needs to be addressed.