Connorrrr Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 you know a lot of the people on these courses are not of benefit to the company they go to work at - not everyone on JSA is an earnest and eager potential employee. Absoloutely. The only benefit I can really see to this though is that it's something for a CV so you can potentially get a "proper" job, if you've nothing on the CV. Other than I just... Don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 you know a lot of the people on these courses are not of benefit to the company they go to work at - not everyone on JSA is an earnest and eager potential employee. edit: connorrrr, they aren't working for Tesco, they're training/getting experience on a Jobcentre course. Even if they're just stacking shelves they're still of a benefit to the company. The point of minimum wage is that it is the gov't mandated minimum compensation a company is to give you in exchange for your work. If you're slacking, they can fire you (the issue with this scheme is if you don't end up completing it then you're not only "fired" but get your JSA docked too). As far as the edit goes, bull shit are they not working for tesco . A training course is a training course. Stacking shelves is stacking shelves. It's not exactly a transferable skill, nor is it training for much else. Tesco would still be paying minimum wage to actual proper employees for this "shelf stacking training course" if Job Centre weren't to have this scheme available to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 it's a course/scheme, and they aren't working for tesco. They aren't people tesco would have hired. If they do a good job, tesco may offer them a job and then they would have rights granted to all employees of tesco ie proper wages, benefits etc. Tesco may not have any jobs available but are providing experience to several people that would otherwise be sitting on their arse with a gaping hole in their CV. Even if they don't get a job with tesco it may help getting another job. It's a bit ridiculous to say shelf stacking isn't a transferable skill. There are plenty of jobs where you'd do just that at a warehouse or other shops for example. Also, even if that is all you do all evening, you are still gaining general employment skills: acting professionally, working with others. And as I said the main thing is you are showing you are willing and able to turn up for work on a regular basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 They're working for Tesco. Tesco are the ones putting up the job applications, not the Job Centre. Are you sure if Tesco weren't being given gov't sponsored free work force they wouldn't have hired these people? If Tesco needs a shelf stakcer or whatever they'd have to hire someone. This way they get their shelf stacker role filled and at no expense. Which also means people that are seeking work can't get actual paying work because even the most basic of jobs are being taken by people working for nothing. Why not have a scheme where the worked gets paid actual minimum wage, but the gov't gives a subsidy through Tesco? Then the person working for tesco is being fully compensated for their work, and tesco still get a bit of a subsidy on it (though I guess it'd be hard to defend paying tesco, a huge huge company, money directly). No one is unemployable, unless they have all their limbs removed and even then you can put them on a headset and set them on tele-sales. You do start to become unemployable though when you're wanting even a basic minimum wage job, and that's still asking more than the free they can actually get through gov't schemes. It's job piracy. It's not getting people in work, it's not providing a "benefit to the community" as the scheme is meant to, it's state sponsored charity work for multi-billion pound companies. And the bull shit is the gov't probably then classes these people as in-work and thus get to lower their unemployment figures. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 At least were I work as far as i am aware a private company provides the service. We do not advertise the jobs and we can barely keep the people we have employed in jobs. We're all working the minimum hours our contracts will allow. So these people are not taking jobs from potential permanent employees. We did hire one of the people who came in on the scheme as someone when a permanent employee left, some of them are OK, but some are a complete liberty to have here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a great scheme, in fact I think there is very little about any aspect of the benefits system that I like or think is well run. Having said that I don't think it is fundamentally flawed idea to have people getting paid the JSA and gaining experience in a work environment. The people you should be annoyed at are the contracted consultants who run schemes like this and all the other employability seminars and courses that are a complete waste of time and money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) The wage for this should imho be the difference between JSA and minimum wage, JSA should be paid as normal. That way everyone wins. Dean gets more money, effectively making the minimum wage. Tesco get a cheaper workforce since the government pick up the first £45 odd. Government get to put people into jobs and look good. EDIT: Tried to look at the details of that job and it sent me in circles, that is a fucking hideous site. Edited February 21, 2012 by Thursday Next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Well in a similar line Clegg is to to unveil plans on a new scheme of getting young unemployed (NEETs) into employment. http://www.bbc.co.uk...cation-17104998 Mainly aimed at the college age group. Works n Pensions Secratary, Iain Duncan Smith, took to the Daily Mail as his platform of choice to call out "Job Snobs" for not being happy working 30hr weeks for £45 http://www.dailymail...tray-young.html The implicit message behind these ill-considered attacks is that jobs in retail, such as those with supermarkets or on the High Street, are not real jobs that worthwhile people do. Apparently not real jobs that are worthwhile paying for either. He's doing well, ignoring that the issue isn't with where the jobs are, it's that the jobs aren't paid. It's also "voluntary", as he repeatedly reminds us in the article, to the point where you can volunteer for the scheme, or have nothing to live on. I guess as someone who "and expenses" is enough to get a second home and garden moats n all kind of random shit that our dear MPs call "expenses", he probably doesn't see the issue in living on nothing. Anyway, brb I'm off to go and become an X-factor celeb as is the work ethic in our school system instilled upon us. (It was actually along the lines of get good grades, go to college, get good grades there, go to Uni, get a good job. That lie never really panned out . I wouldn't be surprised if the reason that they're pushing tuition fees up is to heavily discourage folks from going to Uni. Especially those on a lower income band as it is. Get them grateful for their "volunteer" work at Tesco instead) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 From the article: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises." The point being that they are saying "You could argue that..." Just like you could argue since all humans will sin and may choose to turn from God it is in fact more Christian to kill people at birth so that they are guaranteed to go straight to heaven without the hardship of living a life of misery and suffering on Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Firstly to be fair, this isn't supposed to be part of UK politics per se... and does deserve its own topic. Secondly this is just a debate one that we can carry out logically but cannot perform in society as long as we possess rational empathy. Every female mammal possesses mother tendencies (depends on the hormone levels but it's a given for the most part) that the cry of a baby will evoke the response. We've studied this over time with multiple mammals (once again if memory serves me right discussed in The Naked Ape) and confirmed this. Also are we really going to argue whether it is right to kill life outside of a womb? Abortion is one thing that's normal and fine since the right here isn't the right of the child but the right of the woman bearing the child. Here's the thing when it comes to these ethics, are we going to put aside individualism entirely? This question exists outside of the choice of the woman and enters the choice of the child, the ones that chose to bring it into this world and on a larger scope society. Therefore the responsibility rests on the persons bearing the child and/or responsible for the nurturing of the woman for those 9 months and fostering the urge to give birth to the baby. The Ethics should reflect that; equating it with abortion is muddying it and just trying to be inflammatory. Now, when the child has no such responsible adults; it becomes, depending on the nation, either a property of the state, an individual that needs to find a home via the state or just a life that's going to be shunted from one foster home to another till someone takes the child in. The argument that comes about here is, does everything that's perceived to be living then deserve to live? Should we kill every animal that's born which doesn't have a home because we have an abundance of them (cats and dogs easily come to mind). This argument isn't quite solid because it takes away a few things that we use to differentiate ourselves from our baser instincts and those are primarily - humanity and choice. Of course this argument isn't new i.e. to kill babies and that they are blank slates. Not at all. But the thing is we aren't putting these children to better use when we can. Manpower is vital to society. Even if I were to side with them I don't get the point of killing the child. I mean manpower is vital, we could breed a new workforce in isolation. Breed in effectiveness a third world society to feed and make the mother/birth nation prosper. Wouldn't that be better than life on the streets. We do strip them of choice in that matter though. But if we're to kill them, then we strip them of choice once again. I'm against the destruction of resources and human labour has always and will continue to be one of the 4 fundamental resources in economics as long as we are humans. Utilise it in a different way. How killing babies is different from abortion is that someone has born the infrastructural costs in this case to give birth to one, it's upto the state/society to choose what to do with it. And this is while standing on the side that sees them as a burden to society. As it stands this argument isn't new, and seems to be more of an exercise in argument rather than anything else. However even at that, it has some actual flaws since it's too focussed on comparing killing a new-born to abortion. Edited March 1, 2012 by WTF 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 http://www.telegraph...is-madness.html Well I've nothing else to do today so I guess let's tear this apart. Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance Oh noes! The Tyranny of tolerance! In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. Actually: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. http://www.un.org/en...index.shtml#a16 Nothing says it's between men and women, it just says men and women can marry. Nothing at all saying it's to each other. There is no doubt that, as a society, we have become blasé about the importance of marriage as a stabilising influence and less inclined to prize it as a worthwhile institution. Just to throw this out there but straight couples have done perfectly well at giving the UK the highest divorce rate in the world. I can't see gay couples making it any worse. It has been damaged and undermined over the course of a generation, yet marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father. Bullshit reasoning as always. No one stopped my mums friend getting married despite them both being pretty incapable of having kids. All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be. And the research in comparison to living life in the foster care system? It's a pretty universal fact that same-sex couples can't have kids, pretty much meaning adoption (of a unwanted child produced by a opposite sex partnership) is pretty much the main route of building a family. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? He does have a point there. At least he's not comparing it to bestiality like other folks... Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”. Oh wait, there it is. If the Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world. I'm not sure this guy knows what "intolerance" means He's really hinging on his own misreading of the Declaration of human rights isn't he? Then again he's a bishop, I guess you don't get to the top without a little bit of personal interpretation of books n stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 For more half-witted ramblings from this nincompoop http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9702000/9702354.stm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? He does have a point there. At least he's not comparing it to bestiality like other folks... Yep, he does, and I think polygamy should be legal for consenting adults. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 As do I. In fact, pretty much think that whatever consenting adults want to do with / to each other is not for anyone to decide but themselves. (note that I'm using consenting adults to mean those with mental capacity and no "position of authority" issues). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be. And the research in comparison to living life in the foster care system? It's a pretty universal fact that same-sex couples can't have kids, pretty much meaning adoption (of a unwanted child produced by a opposite sex partnership) is pretty much the main route of building a family. Agree with everything you've said, just wanted to focus on this gem of a quote from that fool. We've seen enough poorly raised people who have no value of human life raised in broken homes who have a father and mother who are married and that's it. How on earth are their shitty parents giving 'stability and well-being' to their lives? They haven't got any. Also this arguement seems to basically tell single parent homes to fuck off, where they have only one parent. Edited March 5, 2012 by excel_excel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 It also tells childless marriages to take a hike too. Only a Cardinal could piss off so many people so efficiently. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Brazil has overtaken the UK as the world's sixth largest economy. Wonder how long we'll still be in the top ten? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomTervo Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Brought this up in my status and Dean mentioned that its wasn't here, so here it is: Scottish Independence. A pointless and arbitrary thing. The SNP manifesto was basically Identical to the Scottish Labour one, but had a couple of telling incongruities; disallowing homosexuals to give blood at all, for example. However, the SNP campaign was so strong (they had a professional, high-level psychologist conducting and researching every move they should make and every word they should say) that none of the public acknowledge, or even know about. And if any other party remotely criticises them, they disregard the argument as 'negative campaigning': a fully successful appeal at making them the 'good guys' in the audiences eyes all the time. It's dark stuff. But even darker, is that the Tories are fucking up so much shit social-policy-wise, I'm actually considering siding with Independence to just get away from all that. That would be lovely. Edited March 11, 2012 by kenshi_ryden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Boooo. Boo to the Queen. Really? St Asaph? A town city with 3,400 people in it? Also Perth already was a city, if it cocked up something as simple as "be a city" why give it a second chance? And finally..Chelmsford in Essex. Essex. Nuf said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17364651 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Those were stupid choices. Boo! Hiss! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 So, I read the article, but I still don't really have any idea what that means. It's just some honor? What qualifies a town for the honor of becoming a city? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk...pshire-17366992 Ha! Played a gig here. Really don't think Hollywood has anything to worry about. Although, it is a bit 'cheeky' (wrong) using the likenesses from the films. Edited March 14, 2012 by Hot Heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 So, I read the article, but I still don't really have any idea what that means. It's just some honor? What qualifies a town for the honor of becoming a city? Basically the Queen goes "This town is now a city" and poof it becomes a city. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Bzh1d8qFpuY#t=396s 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 So it doesn't mean anything, it's just called a city now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 That'd be it. Bit of media spotlight, re-writing of wikipedia, n everything carries on as normal. There's still bigger towns and a few smaller cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.