Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

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

203 replies

MaryMotherOfCheeses · 17/02/2013 17:16

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21490542

"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]

OP posts:
noddyholder · 18/02/2013 10:31

I did say that katy You can do it without but you won't get a look in as they have plenty of those with applying.

noddyholder · 18/02/2013 10:32

I am so worried about my ds generation tbh they are going to really feel all this in the next 5 years I fear.

plonko · 18/02/2013 10:40

Ivy, I did not make myself clear, sorry. What noddy said - to get a sniff of an interview you need extra qualifications. Good a levels mean nothing now.

This has veered off on a tangent, but the general point I was trying to make still stands. Our employment situation is so screwed up that despite having a nmw our govt expects qualified people to work for nothing when they are trying to make use if their education. Cait Reilly was trying to gain experience in a profession. If she succeeds in gaining employment in that profession she will pay back more in tax than if she were to work in an unskilled job. If she does not succeed then at least she has served her community.

ivykaty44 · 18/02/2013 10:53

What ids misses is that people with a degree will volunteer to work in an area that they need to gain experience to further there career, whether that be archives or something more obscure. Making them stack supermarket shelves instead of volunteer work in their own field is inane as they would be able to get a part time job and volunteer if there weren't people doing workfare for free and taking all the part time jobs

plonko · 18/02/2013 11:14

Glad to see we basically agree.

moondog · 18/02/2013 11:23

But Ivy, who will volunteer to clean toilets or sweep up in cafes or block drains?
It is indisputable that many people will want to volunteer in PR companies and fashion houses or trendy nightclubs.

I couldn't pick and choose when I cleaned toilets/chambermaided/collected census papers on the roughest estate in town.

Life is not all about doing what you want to do.
People shoudl be offered a choice of areas, yes and I have issues with working for large companies like Tesco but you can't just sit there drumming your fingers whilst you umm and aah and eventually plump for working in the wallpaper archives at the V&A.
Hmm

noddyholder · 18/02/2013 12:38

If you have paid 50k plus for an education you should at least be able to do all you can to get a career going in your chosen field and if that involves volunteering in that profession to get a foot in then so be it but to make people do irrelevant jobs such as tesco etc is just wrong. If tesco needs shelves stacked or loos cleaned then let them bloody pay someone who is looking for unskilled work to do it and get them off the dole!

VerlaineChasedRimbauds · 18/02/2013 14:00

But moondog nobody should HAVE to volunteer to clean toilets or sweep up in cafes. Not unless that was part or a wider volunteering duty in an environment where they were learning other skills or making useful contacts. If you are cleaning toilets, sweeping up or stacking shelves (all jobs that need doing) then this should be PAID for.

A few people keep missing the point (of this thread) that it's not (not even a little bit) about someone thinking that some sort of work is "beneath" them or that if you haves a degree then you should never have to take on a job you don't want (if you are expecting state benefits). Of course, if the shelf stacking job is the only one available to you then that's the one you'll have to take until you find one you prefer. The point is that if you are stacking shelves you should be PAID to do it. You shouldn't have to leave your volunteer work to "volunteer" to stack shelves. The shelves need stacking. The company needs the shelves stacked. Therefore they should pay someone who wants the job to do it! I do not understand why this is so hard to comprehend.

ttosca · 18/02/2013 14:44

The people who are genuinely disgusted and outraged by this can help out by sending emails or tweets to the exploitative companies:

List Of Workfare Companies

anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.es/2013/02/list-of-workfare-companies-mwa.html?m=1

You will also find an outline of some of the arguments against workfare as well as a template letter at the bottom.

Thanks guys!

Rhiannon86 · 18/02/2013 16:16

This reply has been deleted

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

ivykaty44 · 18/02/2013 16:24

Moondog, in answer to your question read my post, no one should be forced, that is not then a volunteer and remember volunteers do take away jobs for pay giving the receiver of the volunteering an advantage

VerlaineChasedRimbauds · 18/02/2013 20:54

If that were really the case Rhiannon86, why not allow them to continue with volunteer work relevant to the job they are searching for? If a job (for money) comes up, then of course they need to take that or stop claiming benefit, but it's ridiculous to suggest that someone who has perfectly good work experience but is currently out of work has to go and stack shelves for a commercial business without being paid a WAGE. How valuable would you consider the experience of stacking shelves to be when you were considering who to employ? More valuable than other volunteer work where the applicant was able to point to relevant experience?

How long do you think Poundland spend showing their employees (the ones they pay) how to stack shelves?

What is workfare in Poundland giving the claimant?

Do you honestly honestly think that workfare experience in Poundland would be more valuable to the claimant in terms of future job prospects than volunteer work in the museum? This wasn't about a benefit to the claimant at all. If someone is taking on work that someone else would normally be paid to do then they should be paid for it. And they should be paid the same rate if they are doing the same work.

If workfare is to give people work experience to be of benefit to the claimant (rather than as a punishment for daring to be out of work and claiming JSA) then why can't they get that work experience in a volunteer placement of their choice, if they are able to arrange it?

Why should tax payer's money be paid over to commercial enterprises for a completely pointless exercise? It's bonkers. I don't want my taxes going to Tesco and Poundland - it skews the market in any case.

I don't suppose we shall ever agree though.

Darkesteyes · 18/02/2013 21:21

The Poundland Principle.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/poundland-unskilled-labour-cait-reilly

NicholasTeakozy · 18/02/2013 21:32

I know a young lad who's just finished a four week placement at Poundland. His verdict: pointless. He got no training whatever, and whenever he asked what they wanted him to do he was left dangling and spent the time walking round the store to spot areas to re-stock. He feels, as do I, that he should've been paid NMW for his time off the unemployment statistics.

BreconBeBuggered · 18/02/2013 22:03

Rhiannon86, I cannot for the life of me see what training is required to stack shelves that takes more than an hour or so to familiarise staff with the layout of the store and stockroom. My very first job as a student many years ago entailed doing just that, with a crew of equally inexperienced students who needed part-time work to finance themselves. Oddly enough, we got the hang of it well before our first shift was over. Now as it happens, once my course had finished I did decide to go on a full-time government employment scheme that only paid £10 plus travelling expenses (PhD student boyfriend was deemed to be supporting me so no unemployment benefit) because it could and did lead to an offer of paid work in my field. Unpaid shelf-stacking would have taken me precisely nowhere.

limitedperiodonly · 18/02/2013 22:15

As I said before. People who champion the Work Programme are either economically illiterate or spoiling for a fight.

limitedperiodonly · 18/02/2013 22:18

Or part time derailers. Which isn't economically productive and so unworthy of attention at this dire time.

domesticgodless · 19/02/2013 13:58

limitedperiodonly- absolutely!! Or both

domesticgodless · 19/02/2013 14:00

Like everything else this useless and corrupt government does, it benefits only the short term interests of profit and ultimately wastes both individual talent and the economy itself. Putting two people out of productive work instead of allowing the unemployed person to train for something skilled of which they are quite probably capable.

The attitude of Rhiannon etc is pure, bitter snobbery and assumes that all the unemployed (especially the young) are up themselves and want to spend their time dreaming about careers in 'friendship bracelet making' as moondog so memorably (and ludicrously) said above...when they could be being proper slaves and 'no better than they ought to be' as my gran used to say :D

domesticgodless · 19/02/2013 14:02

And btw the economy needs skills not more unskilled workers. China and India can supply those at 1/10th of the price. We need a well trained workforce and what do we get? Useless Gove destroying the education system and limited opportunities for everyone except people with rich parents to actually train for a job. On a global level we are very fucked.

ttosca · 20/02/2013 15:11

Listen to serial liar and sociopath Ian Duncan Smith become increasingly agitated as he is called out on his lies and spin:

Iain Duncan-Smith was involved in an explosive bust-up with James O'Brien live on LBC 97.3.

www.lbc.co.uk/listen-obriens-explosive-row-with-duncan-smith-67738

cornycourvoisier · 20/02/2013 15:51

he keeps banging on about how people on workfare are 'paid by the taxpayer.'

Well so are you IDS you vile, vile man.
Hopefully not after the next election though.

Darkesteyes · 20/02/2013 16:22

Thankyou very much for the link tosca. Duncan Smith squirming.Bastard.

MerryCouthyMows · 20/02/2013 16:44

But moondog - when YOU cleaned toilets, swept café floors etc. YOU would have been paid MORE than the equivalent rate of JSA at that time.

So if you cleaned toilets in 1998, you would have received more than the £47 a week that JSA was then.

Therefore if you clean toilets in 2013, you expect to receive more than the £71 a week that JSA is now...

And that is the crux of it. If a job is there to be done, instead if providing FREE labour (for the company) to go the job, whilst STILL paying JSA to the claimant, the company should be made to HIRE that person as a member of staff paid AT LEAST NMW, thus TAKING THAT CLAIMANT OFF BENEFITS?!

Why are people so blind to see that the people this policy hurts the most are those that WOULD be doing these jobs as PAID work, being paid AT LEAST NMW?!

Where do THOSE people now find work?

Oh yes.

They can't. So after 6 months of being unable to find a PAID job...they are sent to do that job for their JSA.

Why, as an employer, would you hire someone for 40hrs a week @ £6.19/hr (paying out £247.60 a week) when you were being OFFERED MONEY to take somebody to do that job for free?!

It wouldn't be great business sense, would it?

So it is a no-brainer WHY these companies are clamouring to be a part of the 'work programme'.

It is, in a fell swoop, DESTROYING all the employment rights that have been fought for from the 70's onwards.

No entitlement to maternity leave, no entitlement to paternity leave, no entitlement to sick leave (if you get sick on the work programme and don't go to your work placement, your JSA IS STOPPED), no entitlement to holiday (At ALL, paid OR unpaid), no entitlement to parental leave if your DC are sick, no entitlement to pension provision...

The list goes on and on.

And the thing is, once they have destroyed worker's rights for the lower end of society, those currently unemployed, how long do you think it will be before these rights are abolished for EVERY WORKER?

Darkesteyes · 20/02/2013 17:20

Exactly Couthy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Swipe left for the next trending thread