Confused re attitude to benefits and work experience

[catontheroof]

Your thoughts please - why has it become so politically incorrect to suggest that fit adults in this country should be expected to work for a living?

I believe that we need a safety net but cannot understand why people should not have to take jobs that they are qualified for if those jobs exist. I also cannot understand why people "deserve" tax credits etc.

If large chunks of our population do not work then our GDP is low. The only way that we can afford to have so many on benefits with a relatively high standard of living is by importing goods from other countries where the workers live and work in atrocious conditions.

Why do we think that it is right and proper that people in this country sit around being paid not to work whilst tens of thousands all over the world work in sweat shops to provide them with a lifestyle?

If our fit population all worked then we'd increase GDP and have money to help people in other countries where there is real poverty.

they most probably think people on minimum wage only have to work 8 hours to get paid for 8too, instead of having to work 9.25 or whatever it is because your breaks are never paid for

there are NO jobs i am recruiting for 2 roles. i cannot find the right quality candidates.

how many applicants have you had? What's been wrong with them?

Do you not feel you should take someone on and train them if they lack the right skills?

well I suppose it depends what you are looking for, but I found it nigh on impossible to even get interviews and i know very well I am not alone. The company I work for are receiving 300 applications a month for no jobs (retail)

I think that's the problem with alot of firms these days actually shotinfoot, only 10 years ago firms would train you up to use sage etc, now it's a requirement

how many applicants have you had? What's been wrong with them?
-> general skills shortage in sector. recruiter does initail screen so 10-15 have been interviewed.

Do you not feel you should take someone on and train them if they lack the right skills?
-> for one of the roles i would train right person but the other, they need the technical skills & experience (4+ yrs) or i have to keep looking.

Reality, I would hazard a guess that if that's the case, you are not offering a high enough salary.

nope. have discussed that with recruiter. skills shortage.

Were these people actually stacking shelves in Tesco, or doing other jobs in the store or offices? It does take some investment in the permanent staff's time in any business to organise and run work experience.

2.6 Million unemployed
463,000 jobs.

Thread ends with a whimper.

'If our fit population all worked then we'd increase GDP and have money to help people in other countries where there is real poverty.'

I choose to care for DC instead (SAHM). I don't want to do 'paid work' so that I then have to pay someone to look after DC. I tried it and it isn't for me (at this time-that may change). What is wrong with that? My family come before the economy.

then why oh why do we have the "Pret a Manger" syndrome, that every time a Pret opens its staffed by non English people? bacuase we have a generation of brits who (a) think its beneath them, would rather stay home on benefits ta or (b) are simply not good enough

I hate the way that if we try to discuss this fact, you get accused of not having any compassion. Or wanting see DLA cut (which I dont)

Of course I have compassion, I just think we have a fucked up issue with a certain social strata but noone dare mention it. It needs adressing, and FAST

But Reality, that doesn't make sense. If there's a skills shortage in that sector, you have to offer more money, that's simple economics, supply and demand.

Or you lower your standards and train someone up.

Do you really think there are people out there that could fill those roles but would rather stay on benefits? Clearly there is some mismatch between the role, the salary and the labour market.

whats your line of business dreaming?

P, that is a London issue though, isn't it? The same does not happen in the North or Scotland, where most workers in Pret and similar places are British. There have to be particular issues with London, including the number of people living in London who are foreign, which is only to be expected in a multicultural city.

Porcamiseria - Your three statements as to why Pret is staffed by non English workers aren't quite correct. You need to ask their management exactly what the answers are, and I would imagine you wouldn't get the truth.

I know many many English youngsters with good GCSE's who apply for jobs, don't get an answer from a potential employer, let alone an interview. They're are perfectly willing to put in a good week's work and would welcome the opportunity to do so, but heartbreakingly do not even get a response. Fast forward a few weeks, enter Pret or similar and find non English staff with not such a good command of language and cultural skills. Please don't generalise and demean all of our unemployed. There is a BIG problem here that only employers can address.

There is a BIG problem here that only employers can address people looking for work can address themselves.

it would be racial discrimination to choose to hire british over e.g. spanish purely on the grounds of race.

How do you figure that, when qualified young people don't even get a response and non English staff with lesser skils can? Answers on a postcard please.

Non English girl on the reception of local cinema / bowling alley does not even know what a CV is when an advert on the window asks potential employees to leave one at her desk. Did she ever submit a CV for her role?

I geninely dont know. good question happyherts

Its not simple, and I know that are gazillions of good people that cant find a job right now. But thats a seperate issue.

Its a big fat fucking mess TBH

It's all very well stating a 'what's in it for me' attitude but really, what is that family going to eat? How is that family going to pay it's bills?

why should I pay that family's bills? Why can't I, for example, say that I would rather pay for a family in the UK to only live at subsistance level (ie just have food coupons and accomodation) and use the rest of my taxes to buy vaccines for children in Africa who are dying because they have no vaccines?

Why do people in the UK feel that they have a right to such a high standard of living when people in other countries are so much worse off?

A lot of the resentment about these schemes seems to centre on large employers getting cheap labour. The 'stacking shelves at Tesco' job is ridiculed because, of course, any half-wit can walk in off the streets and be fully productive immediately.

Well, as someone who currently stacks shelves and works on a till - it ain't necessarily so! When I started (not with Tesco) I had two and a half days training before they even let me on the shop floor. There were two trainers for five new starters (plus the admin staff arranging my uniform, entry onto employee database, setting up what computer systems I needed access to on the shop floor etc.). Only then was I was allowed on a till for just an hour, with a trained member of staff standing by the till the whole time to supervise me and assist with any problems that arose (and there were a few!). Then back to review all the training so far.

It was a good two months before I stopped ringing the bell at least once an hour for assistance of one sort or another from trained staff. As for shelf-stacking - the physical act might be straightforward, but that's the last act in a chain of action regarding stock control, which I am as responsible for as everyone else in the chain. I've been there four months now and I'm still undergoing regular training and training reviews.

During the early weeks I required support from the trained staff, which affected their productivity as they explained things/showed me how/fixed my mistakes. So a trainee is not the same as free labour. The labour acquired is offset by the labour diverted into training and support. Trainees are not just pointed at the shelves and told 'go'.

They are being "paid" with the JSA they have already paid for by National Insurance.

the whole point of the economic crisis is that NI no where nears covers the amount we are now paying out. That is what "deficit" means.

its a good question caton, this sense of entitlement that comes with being a brit. I hear you!