Homebase let cat out of the bag about using workfare to reduce wage bills

[ttosca]

Only someone very naive could believe private firms are participating in the government?s workfare scheme because they want to provide work experience for unemployed people out of the goodness of their own hearts and not as a way of reducing their wage bills by using forced labour at taxpayers? expense.

But ask any of them and they?ll swear the workfare people they?ve taken on are extra to their requirements and are not ? repeat not ? replacing jobs they would normally have had to pay someone a proper wage to do.

Well. It looks like Homebase have accidentally let the cat out of the bag.

Here?s a poster currently displayed on the wall in the manager?s office of Homebase Haringey ? which clearly shows the company is using workfare as a means to reduce their payroll costs:

tompride.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/homebase-workfare.jpg?w=529&h=715

This is particularly interesting, as Homebase have recently been lying to telling the public they?re not participating in workfare at all. See my previous post about that here:

Homebase are so embarrassed about using workfare ? they?re reduced to lying about it

Looks like Homebase just can?t stop themselves telling porky pies about workfare, doesn?t it?

tompride.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/oops-homebase-let-cat-out-of-the-bag-about-using-workfare-to-reduce-wage-bills/

But it doesn't think in mother tongue does it claig??????

Sorry, I like Hegel, I meant Marx was an idiot. Hegel is a genius and one of teh great philosophers of humanity. Marx isn't.

That just smacks of hard cheese Claig

'But it doesn't think in mother tongue does it claig??????'

No but from what you quoted of Marx, he did not mention mother tongue, unless he has changed the goalposts.

Hegel is not evil, he is a genius.

The New World Order uses Hegel's ideas because he is a genius. But what they use his ideas for has nothing to do with Hegel.

Do babies have fully formed thoughts, yes or no?

Do you know it had never occurred to me that Hegel was wrong until I encountered Marx, now why is that? well that would be because we only question things as we encounter them. We can not think about something that doesn't actually exist for us.

If they have enough jobs to hand out for workfare, they have enough to pay those workers a wage.
Maybe this is why there are next to no jobs going in my area.

If workfare was scrapped, there will be more paid jobs to go around. Yes we know they still get money through benefits, but £53 a week is no where near the nmw.

Its wrong on all levels.

Marx wasn't interested in babies, that is my example because it is quite a good way to examine the difference in the two dialectic methods.

'Do babies have fully formed thoughts, yes or no? '

What is a fully formed thought because from whast I have heard of Marx, he never had one?

Have you got the actual quote from Marx because first you daid thought and now it is fully formed thought?

pumpkin you are right. These workfare jobs prevent peopel getting real jobs or working overtime if there are any real vacancies at all.

That is why workfare should be done in newly created public sector jobs created afresh for workfare schemes such as new road builds etc.

No babies do not have fully formed thoughts using mother tongue unless they understand language. Does anyone have fully formed thoughts? no because our thoughts are constantly shaped by everything that we hear/see/feel and perceive around us, so all thinking is a dialectic btw man and his environment, in this way we change what we think but we also change our environment, it is a dialectic.

but it shouldn't be workfare, surely it should paid employment at a living wage claig?

'n this way we change what we think but we also change our environment'

But how can we change our environment by thought alone. The environment is material. Surely we would need to act phsically to change it?

'but it shouldn't be workfare, surely it should paid employment at a living wage claig?'

Yes I agree. I am not in favour of workfare. I am just a realist and believe that nothing I say or think will change Iain Duncan Smith's mind.

We can not act without thinking. We can not think without acting or without something acting upon us. We can not act upon our environment without firstly being aware of it.

Worker becomes conscious of his exploitation through his lived experience. Without consciousness he can not act to overcome this exploitation.

I disagree, we can change things. In the 30's the communist league took to the streets, radicalised the workers (those who had work) material deprivation makes people act. Roosevelt acted to save the capitalists by getting them to dig deeper into their pockets, through progressive taxation he raised the money to invest in capital expenditure which funded, schools, roads.........more people in work means greater labour power so that wages can not be undermined and from 1945-1975 (ish) labour and unions were in a strong bargaining position, high levels of employment, rising wages, rising productivity, creation of the welfare state, house building, NHS in the UK, similar trajectory and economic policy. When Thatcher adopted the "thinkers" ideas and implemented neo-liberal policy, unemployment rose, weakened labour bargaining, devalued labour, stagnating wages, rising profits and huge wealth inequality to the same levels we had before the depression in the 30s

The only thing that can save capitalism is the workers, and they must fight for better wages, progressive tax, redistribution and capital investment that creates employment etc,

This is what the Daily Mail thought of Jewish immigrants around the Nazi era (1938):

tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2yzgdft&s=6

This is the Daily Mail openly supporting fascists in 2012:

mob.indymedia.org.uk/images/2012/04/495241.jpg.indyscaled.jpg

Just so you know that you are supporting fascists, claig. On your conscience be it.

if you look here you'll even see a nice pic of Rothermere smoozing up to Hitler.

histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/reasons-to-hate-daily-mail-94-hitler.html

ttosca, I weasn't around in the 1930s. I read the Daily Mail now and it is not fascist.

The article saying vote Le Pen is by one of its commentators, it doesn't reflect the views of the paper. The Mail has or has had all sorts of commentaors from Janet Street Porter to Suzanne Moore and they wouldn't write for a fascist paper. The Dasily Mail has all sorts of opinions and views from left and right.

Paul Dacre was apparently a good mate with Gordon Brown.

Calling the Daily Mail fascist gives socialist workers a worse name than they already have.

histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/reasons-to-hate-daily-mail-94-hitler.html

With Hitler in power, Lord Rothermere publically declared his renewed support. Writing in The Daily Mail on 10th July, 1933, he praised Hitler's new regime which had stopped Germany 'rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements' - Jewish people - and urging 'all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany'. Adolf Hitler in a letter to Lord Rothermere on 7th December, 1933 relayed his thanks to Rothermere for 'the wise and beneficial public support' the Daily Mail had given him so far.

Mini, the first line of that article mentions that Nick Cohen writes for teh Daily Mail. He is Jewish and used to write for teh Guardian and maybe still does (I don't know). He would not write for a fascist paper.

These attacks on the people's paper are so desperate that they give socialists a worse name than New Labour left them with.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/rothermere-urged-hitler-to-invade-romania-6151638.html

ttosca, I weasn't around in the 1930s. I read the Daily Mail now and it is not fascist.

It cannot openly be fascist because it would be shut down.

The article saying vote Le Pen is by one of its commentators, it doesn't reflect the views of the paper.

Oh but it does, and its rhetoric hasn't really changed very much since 1938. Replace "German Jews Pouring In To This Country" with "Immigrants Pouring In To This Country" and you have every other Daily Mail headline for the past 10 years.

Put bluntly, no other newspaper would even think of publishing such a headline - columnist or not. Not even the Torygraph would publish a headline saying "The only responsible vote is for Le Pen".

The Mail has or has had all sorts of commentaors from Janet Street Porter to Suzanne Moore and they wouldn't write for a fascist paper. The Dasily Mail has all sorts of opinions and views from left and right.

Why wouldn't they?

Paul Dacre was apparently a good mate with Gordon Brown.

Who cares?

Mini, the first line of that article mentions that Nick Cohen writes for teh Daily Mail. He is Jewish and used to write for teh Guardian and maybe still does (I don't know). He would not write for a fascist paper.

Ha! Nick Cohen supported the Iraq war - and still does. He's not exactly the paradigm of an ethical person.

But the jobs WERE there, Claig. Until governments of ALL colours decided to start offering indentured people (I am hesitant to use the word I really want as I have been told before on debates that it is too emotive...) to do work for free.

Which undermined the lower end of the job market.

A few years ago, every year my local supermarket would take on Temporary staff over the Christmas period, and keep a sizeable percentage of them on afterwards.

There has not been ANY seasonal jobs available, OR permanent ones, in my local two Tesco stores for over 14 months.

There are staff that had worked there, been made redundant, then 6 months later BEEN MADE TO DO THE EXACT SAME JOB on workfare.

(I spoke to a lad who had worked the dairy section for 18 months before being made redundant, only to be sent BACK to the same store, to work, yes, you guessed it, the dairy section, just 6 months later.)

If this ISN'T exploitation, then I can't think what is!

't the jobs WERE there, Claig. Until governments of ALL colours '

good point, I agree with you. I am not in favour of it.