Haven't EU rules made european workers lazy and are we paying to sustain them???

[Pritti7]

I have personally met people in Belgium and Spain who take time off from work for petty reasons and stay on dole simply because the EU allows it. Would you work if you knew that even if you chose to stay at home the governemtn would pay you the same amount of money??
Some business owners I knew complained that they have to pay the government what they pay their staff (if wage is 1000 eur/month, the employee costs the business 2000eur each month) so in case these employees were ever fired or chose to leave at their whim (with so little as a doctors note that they are depressed, which is not at all hard to get if one cries hard and long enough in front of the doctor) the government can support them. Imagine if you cannot tell your staff off because you never know what makes them flip and they quit, simply because they don't have to work to earn a living.

Haven't EU rules made people so lazy that they don't mind being out of employment because they know they will get paid the same amount of money whether they work or whether they are on dole????
In spain by law an employee could be out of employment and on dole for a year. May be this has changed after their recession. And again I know 3 people who have made full use of this 'Comfort'.

I have also met someone personally from Sweden (who also had friends in similar situations) who had never ever worked in her life and was supported by the government only because she became a mother at an early age. the monthly benefit was enough that she could go a week long holiday to other european countries twice a year.

I have personally seen people in Belgium who were allowed into the country on asylum. These very same people were working in houses as domestic help, and also claiming over 1000 Euros per month to sustain themselves. Thats just cash! not including healthcare and right to educate their children. Lets not forget while paying no tax!!

I don't read the newspaper or follow whats being said, because each party is telling us what they want us to hear. Just from what I know from my experience, I feel the EU is making people lazy. If productivity goes down, production will go down and prosperity will diminish.

EU membership would have been beneficial for UK if it was a union of super powers. But with so many weak candidates joining, is it holding us back? I am no economist or C-suite executive, so I don't know, but lets just look around,
has our quality of life improved?
has healthcare improved?
Has education got any cheaper??
Min wage helped households step up to 50p per hour. Umm that means roughly a £20 per week , is that really a significant improvement?

So if UK has to suffer for 10 years after exit, is it a lot if that could mean a secure future for the coming generations? And if it stays to save us from the next 10 years of insecurity and uncertainty but bleeds us to death in the next 50-100 years?

Again, I don't claim to know much and this is my opinion and just one side of the coin. So please excuse my lack of information.

here are teh conclusions

Conclusions
The research has uncovered two fundamental points. The first is the limited extent of knowledge
about the extent, causes and costs of absence. The second is a shift in policies of management and
control.
On the first point, comparative studies note the extent of national variations in levels of absence,
and problems with the comparability of available data: data scarcely exist in some countries and
are patchy in others. On top of this, the different definitions and methods of measurement make
international comparison hazardous. This contrasts with the phenomenon of unemployment, for
example, for which statistical agencies have made major efforts to devise common definitions and
measures,
Labour force surveys of individual employees represent one method of achieving comparable
data, and their value might be addressed further. In analysing patterns, the research has followed
the standard practice of considering mean (average) rates of absence. But averages hide a great
deal of variation: within any one country, there is likely to be a wide distribution of patterns of
absence. The distribution of absence, in particular the proportion of the total days of absence
accounted for by spells of different lengths, merits further attention.
Turning to substantive developments, there appear to be considerable differences in levels of
absence between countries, though these do not fall into neat patterns; former tendencies for
Scandinavia to see high levels of absence, for example, seem to have disappeared. There has also
been no overall trend in the rate of absence, though we might expect the recent recession to exert
a downward effect.
In terms of the management of attendance, two broad trends are evident. The first relates to
control. It is reflected in a growing concern with the costs of absence, together with policies of
controlling these costs, notably those to health insurance systems. It may also be connected to
presenteeism: if managements are too controlling, workers may feel forced to attend work when
they are ill. It would, however, be wrong to exaggerate such a tendency. Coercive forms of
attendance control seem to be rare. There are pressures towards costs control, but their effects are
likely to be mediated by other factors.

In spain by law an employee could be out of employment and on dole for a year. May be this has changed after their recession. And again I know 3 people who have made full use of this 'Comfort'

With 25% unemployment and young people who haven't yet worked not being entitled to the dole in Spain, I think it is bloody great that some people who don't want to work stay at home.

I remember in my youth looking for work and having to compete with another hundred people just for the most mundane job, while the right wing were complaining about people on welfare not wanting to work, because they really thought it would be good if people like me had to compete with 200 people for each job.