Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Filo on February 17, 2015, 01:34:04 pm
-
The latest hair brained idea from the Tories!
Will they be paid the minimum wage?
All that will happen is unscrupulous employers will get benefit claimants do do the work rather than putting these jobs on the jobs market at the going rate!
-
The latest hair brained idea from the Tories!
Will they be paid the minimum wage?
All that will happen is unscrupulous employers will get benefit claimants do do the work rather than putting these jobs on the jobs market at the going rate!
It's a great idea and certainly has the support of right minded people. No they won't be getting the minimum wage and why should they. If they want the minimum wage then they need to get off their lazy arses and get a proper job.
Anyone capable of work can find a job. Those that can't be arsed need to be penalised. It's the only way to encourage some of these lazy scroungers to actually get a job.
I've got news for them. Benefits are going to get cut and cut and cut. The politicians have finally wised up to the fact that we can't afford to pay benefits to lazy scroungers.
Get in.
-
Bring back the workhouse and big chimneys for the kids to sweep......
Mick, the jobs that people are going to be required to do to recieve benefits - who is doing them at the moment and how much are they being paid?
-
Bring back the workhouse and big chimneys for the kids to sweep......
Mick, the jobs that people are going to be required to do to receive benefits - who is doing them at the moment and how much are they being paid?
They are currently being done by volunteers. There are never enough volunteers for everything that needs doing. For example, this could involve making meals for older people or working for local charities, alongside 10 hours of job hunting. If they can't think of what needs doing then I'm quite happy to come up with some ideas.
The Tories are also exploring benefit curbs for addicts and the obese. Quite right to. Its about time we toughened up on benefits scroungers.
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2015/02/tories-explore-benefit-curbs-for-addicts-and-obese/
-
So you are going to annoy current charitable volunteers by paying people to do the work they do for free? So after the people on benefits have moved back into the workplace by securing a proper job (which is what the scheme is intended to do) who is going to do the charitable work now the volunteers have left?
-
So you are going to annoy current charitable volunteers by paying people to do the work they do for free? So after the people on benefits have moved back into the workplace by securing a proper job (which is what the scheme is intended to do) who is going to do the charitable work now the volunteers have left?
A lot of volunteers themselves are on some kind of benefit. For example I know a pensioner that gets disability living allowance and the state pension (topped up by SERPS). Volunteers are needed. Most volunteers I know would welcome a doley with open arms. I really can't see how current volunteers would be annoyed.
Another job they could do is help out in the community libraries. They are always looking for staff. They couldn't care less what your financial background is. Park warden is another job no one is doing at the moment. Lets get some pride back in our parks. The more people we can get doing these jobs for free the better. It will certainly help keep my council tax bill down.
I know one thing. If you do some volunteering you are much more likely to get a job than a lazy arsed doley that spends all their benefits on fags and booze and watches telly all day.
Once the doleys get work then the existing volunteers will carry on as before. However I think you'll find there will always be doleys with us. Even if they are on the dole whilst they are in between jobs. There will always be a plentiful supply of doleys.
-
I currently work on a back to work scheme which is identical to what the tories have proposed. However charities wont sign up to these placements as it goes against their ethos . So unless charities/businesses are forced to take them on it won't happen. To be fair I dont blame the charities, added to that the cost is astronomical as well.
Good thing in principle but will struggle in the long run
-
Biggest problem is that the thing is aimed at the wrong target. Where's the biggest totals odf waste and scrounging? It's not with kids that's for sure!
BobG
-
Like scaley said; charities won't benefit from this, neither will councils - it will be private companies will reach out with jobs they need doing.
Surely when you've got a problem with young people out of work, you create jobs for them?
-
Don't be silly BJW! Of course you don't. You organise things so these kids become virtually free labour for all your business friends and you make sure that the plebs pick up most of the cost of paying these oiks their shabby dole money through their income tax. It's easy peasy and it don't half help the bottom line of your business mates. You don't even have to train them in anything or pay anything annoying like redundancy. Just chuck em out when you've finished.
Do keep up BJW.
Bob
-
Don't be silly BJW! Of course you don't. You organise things so these kids become virtually free labour for all your business friends and you make sure that the plebs pick up most of the cost of paying these oiks their shabby dole money through their income tax. It's easy peasy and it don't half help the bottom line of your business mates. You don't even have to train them in anything or pay anything annoying like redundancy. Just chuck em out when you've finished.
Do keep up BJW.
Bob
Nail on the head Bob, it's already happening in the Work Programme, Ideas like this, and Zero hours contracts will ensure the "have's" will always have, and the " have nots" will never have!
-
Don't be silly BJW! Of course you don't. You organise things so these kids become virtually free labour for all your business friends and you make sure that the plebs pick up most of the cost of paying these oiks their shabby dole money through their income tax. It's easy peasy and it don't half help the bottom line of your business mates. You don't even have to train them in anything or pay anything annoying like redundancy. Just chuck em out when you've finished.
Do keep up BJW.
Bob
Nail on the head Bob, it's already happening in the Work Programme, Ideas like this, and Zero hours contracts will ensure the "have's" will always have, and the " have nots" will never have!
That's not the case in this country at all. If you have ambition, drive, a brain and work hard you can achieve. There are a lot of countries in the world where it's just impossible to get on.
-
Don't be silly BJW! Of course you don't. You organise things so these kids become virtually free labour for all your business friends and you make sure that the plebs pick up most of the cost of paying these oiks their shabby dole money through their income tax. It's easy peasy and it don't half help the bottom line of your business mates. You don't even have to train them in anything or pay anything annoying like redundancy. Just chuck em out when you've finished.
Do keep up BJW.
Bob
I wish you weren't right BobG :(
-
Like scaley said; charities won't benefit from this, neither will councils - it will be private companies will reach out with jobs they need doing.
Surely when you've got a problem with young people out of work, you create jobs for them?
There in a nutshell we have the problem. Lefties think that the government can magically conjure up jobs for everyone. lefties live in a dream world where the government can sort out all the problems of society and thet can just sit back and wait for the government to sort their lives out.
How do they think government can n do this? By over taxing the rich and borrowing money to make the state bigger and create non jobs.
The only way to create proper jobs is to allow the private sector to grow. It is the private sector that creates jobs. Not government and its time you lefties realise this.
I would also remind you that every Labour government in history has left office with unemployment higher than when they took office. FACT.
-
All Cameron is doing is weaponising the young unemployed, in the run up to a general election, if it is such a good idea why was n't it included in the benefits reforms at the start of the current government?
-
All Cameron is doing is weaponising the young unemployed, in the run up to a general election, if it is such a good idea why was n't it included in the benefits reforms at the start of the current government?
Lib Dems would never have it. It is a good idea if it's carried out correctly though. However, my concern would be how rigid it could be. When I graduated I was on jobseekers for about a month and spent most of my time applying and attending various interviews. Sadly, despite my contract being signed I ended up still having to attend sessions or have to pay back some of the money - it was ludicrous. What they must not do is take away the ability for people to actually apply for jobs....
-
BFYP
I think what you're saying is that it's him over there who is the feckless, idle one who should be made to work for his benefits, not I over here who am a hardworking person experiencing temporary bad luck.
-
Not at all you thought wrong for a change! I'm saying it should be situational and not done in a way that hinders those who are looking for work from looking for it.
I know people who missed interviews because they wouldn't change their 'sign-on' time, that is just stupid it really is. What we don't need is people looking for work not able to actually look for work because they have to do something to earn benefits. But, if time can be found for them to do something then why not?
-
Not at all you thought wrong for a change! I'm saying it should be situational and not done in a way that hinders those who are looking for work from looking for it.
I know people who missed interviews because they wouldn't change their 'sign-on' time, that is just stupid it really is. What we don't need is people looking for work not able to actually look for work because they have to do something to earn benefits. But, if time can be found for them to do something then why not?
That exact situation happened to my lad, he was told if he did n't sign on at his allotted time he would lose his jobseekers for 4 weeks, despite the fact that he'd taken the letter in to them with the offer of an interview on it. That convinced me that they are not interested in helping people find employment, just interested in reducing the amount spent on benefits. It's same with zero hour contracts, the amount of hoops you have to jump through is unreal when you need to get your jobseekers back if you have n't had any hours that week, how can people live and plan a life around the uncertainties of zero hour contracts?
-
Those things should be absolutely top of the agenda in LibDem and Labour manifestos. They're immoral, obscene, exploitative and downright dangerous. They should be illegal. Except for Mick. He can work that way as he seems to like them so much.
BobG
-
There's nothing wrong with the zero hours concept. You lefties always look at it from an employee point of view and never consider the employer. It just so happens that this type of contract also suits the employee. It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
What about the employer? I know you lefties hate all employers but why should they have to pay for staff they don't need? Quite often due to fluctuating customer demand staff numbers need to be flexible. You lefties are only happy if businesses have too many staff. You're not bothered about how efficient they are and whether the burden of full time contacts and all the associated benefits put companies out of business.
It's time you lefties realised it is a competitive world and only the most efficient companies will survive. Not using zero hours contracts would be commercial suicide.
-
There's nothing wrong with the zero hours concept. You lefties always look at it from an employee point of view and never consider the employer. It just so happens that this type of contract also suits the employee. It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
What about the employer? I know you lefties hate all employers but why should they have to pay for staff they don't need? Quite often due to fluctuating customer demand staff numbers need to be flexible. You lefties are only happy if businesses have too many staff. You're not bothered about how efficient they are and whether the burden of full time contacts and all the associated benefits put companies out of business.
It's time you lefties realised it is a competitive world and only the most efficient companies will survive. Not using zero hours contracts would be commercial suicide.
Really? I've never heard of a zero-hours contract that allows the employee to determine when they work. I'm sure you can enlighten me. As you so regularly say, evidence man.
-
There's nothing wrong with the zero hours concept. You lefties always look at it from an employee point of view and never consider the employer. It just so happens that this type of contract also suits the employee. It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
What about the employer? I know you lefties hate all employers but why should they have to pay for staff they don't need? Quite often due to fluctuating customer demand staff numbers need to be flexible. You lefties are only happy if businesses have too many staff. You're not bothered about how efficient they are and whether the burden of full time contacts and all the associated benefits put companies out of business.
It's time you lefties realised it is a competitive world and only the most efficient companies will survive. Not using zero hours contracts would be commercial suicide.
Really? I've never heard of a zero-hours contract that allows the employee to determine when they work. I'm sure you can enlighten me. As you so regularly say, evidence man.
Well if you didn't know then you are showing your ignorance. It is common knowledge. However I'm sure most lefties believe zero hours contracts are only for the benefit of employers. This is not surprising as you have a distorted outlook on life and are anti business. You look for anything with which to slag off businesses whether it's true or not.
No need to provide evidence. A quick Google will sort out your ignorance.
Another thing, it is only a tiny minority of employees that don't like these contracts. They work perfectly well for most people. Especially when you get older and are cash rich but time poor. They are the perfect solution. The tiny minority that don't like these contracts would prefer a proper contract with regular hours. Fair enough. But a job with a zero hours contract is better than no job.
There is a reason that the Tories have helped create more jobs in the UK than the rest of Europe put together. It's partly because we have a flexible work force with flexible employment opportunities.
If you want full time contracts with loads of benefits may I suggest you get a job in the public sector or go to a socialist country such as France where you can join their dole queue. In France if you do get a job you'll be well looked after. Unfortunately the chances are you won't get a job as employers won't want to take you on because they can't afford it.
I know what I'd prefer.
Thank goodness there is someone around like me to give the correct perspective on issues like zero hours contracts. Left to you lefties people would have completely the wrong view of them as demonstrated by you.
-
haha love this, "I don't need to provide evidence because it's common knowledge"... :thumbsup:
-
Its common knowledge that zero hours contracts are hated by most employees and abused by most employers ;)
-
It's common knowledge that Mick is a ................. (fill in the blanks yourself!)
-
haha love this, "I don't need to provide evidence because it's common knowledge"... :thumbsup:
It's his standard cop-out when he can't prove anything...!
-
haha love this, "I don't need to provide evidence because it's common knowledge"... :thumbsup:
It is common knowledge. You are also showing your ignorance.
-
Its common knowledge that zero hours contracts are hated by most employees and abused by most employers ;)
Wrong. You too have been brainwashed by lefties.
-
It's common knowledge that Mick is an expert on zero hours contracts unlike lefties.
-
haha love this, "I don't need to provide evidence because it's common knowledge"... :thumbsup:
It's his standard cop-out when he can't prove anything...!
Evidence man. Where is it? Where are those abject apologies you owe me?
Look, I'm prepared to let you off on those other abject apologies you owe me if you give me one for this latest slanderous insult. You only had to Google it I said to fill in the gaps in your ignorance. You obviously can't be bothered so I have gone to the trouble for you and your lleftie mates that don't believe me.
I suggest you all read the following article and then form an orderly line to issue me with your abject apologies. They will be immediately accepted with good grace and we can put this sorry matter behind us. I'll just give the first paragraph from the article as I know a lot of you don't have very long attention spans and may not feel able to read the full article. Here it is. Read it and weep (and apologise).
UK workers on zero-hours contracts are more likely to be happy with their work-life balance than other staff, a survey suggests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
-
Its common knowledge that zero hours contracts are hated by most employees and abused by most employers ;)
Wrong. You too have been brainwashed by lefties.
It's nice when you have a brain to wash, you can't wash anything thats not there in the first place ;)
-
Its common knowledge that zero hours contracts are hated by most employees and abused by most employers ;)
Wrong. You too have been brainwashed by lefties.
It's nice when you have a brain to wash, you can't wash anything thats not there in the first place ;)
Hahaha! You do make me laugh. I wouldn't be at all surprised if your comment also raised a titter or two amongst your leftie mates.
That said, you have been unable to contradict me and I have once again been proved right. Now do the decent thing and get in line with your leftie mates and get that abject apology sorted.
Thanking you in anticipation for your cooperation.
-
I always used to think that if I ever developed some sort of incurable disease I would do the whole world a great big favour and top that vindictive old cow. Now that she's popped her clogs I have a free choice again don't I?
Oh. By the way Mick. You're flogging a dead horse there mate. Polemicists who fail to provide evidence, even if it is self evident, get very short shrift indeed in more intelligent circles than you have inhabited previously.
You DO know what 'polemicist' means don't you? Google will tell you.
BobG
-
Those things should be absolutely top of the agenda in LibDem and Labour manifestos. They're immoral, obscene, exploitative and downright dangerous. They should be illegal. Except for Mick. He can work that way as he seems to like them so much.
BobG
What a load of leftie b*llocks. You obviously don't have a clue about zero hours contracts. Sounds like you'll only be happy when unemployment goes up and businesses are less competitive due to their removal. You obviously don't know or care that zero hours contracts suit most people that are on them. They prefer this type of contact to a regular hours contract.
Regular hours don't suit everyone you know. You lefties never fail to amaze me with what a distorted view of reality you all hold. Once again you spout off with no evidence (unlike me). You then shamefacedly say I don't provide evidence! Unbelievable. As the voice of reason I'm always backing my statements up making you lefties look daft.
It is plainly obvious to any right minded person that I always win the debate and you lefties always attack me not my views. If I'm wrong then why don't you prove it with evidence? I'll tell you why you don't. It's because you believe hearsay if it suits your leftie outlook on life.
May I suggest you do as I do. Read up on the subject. Widen your circle of friends to not just include lefties. You might then be in a position to debate properly with me instead of making yourself look foolish every time you go up against me.
-
So you're saying that its not immoral, obscene, exploitative and dangerous then yes Mick?
I cannot concieve of the paucity of thinking that must go on inside your head. You could be unique mate.
Bob
PS You DO know what 'polemicist' means don't you? Don't forget, Google has always been your friend.
-
haha love this, "I don't need to provide evidence because it's common knowledge"... :thumbsup:
It's his standard cop-out when he can't prove anything...!
Evidence man. Where is it? Where are those abject apologies you owe me?
Look, I'm prepared to let you off on those other abject apologies you owe me if you give me one for this latest slanderous insult. You only had to Google it I said to fill in the gaps in your ignorance. You obviously can't be bothered so I have gone to the trouble for you and your lleftie mates that don't believe me.
I suggest you all read the following article and then form an orderly line to issue me with your abject apologies. They will be immediately accepted with good grace and we can put this sorry matter behind us. I'll just give the first paragraph from the article as I know a lot of you don't have very long attention spans and may not feel able to read the full article. Here it is. Read it and weep (and apologise).
UK workers on zero-hours contracts are more likely to be happy with their work-life balance than other staff, a survey suggests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
I have read that article. Please point out to me the shred of evidence it gives to your own words:
It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
because I can't see any.
When you tell people to use Google because the evidence is out there and then you can't even find any yourself it doesn't inspire any confidence in your self-proclaimed 'expertise'.
-
So you're saying that its not immoral, obscene, exploitative and dangerous then yes Mick?
I cannot concieve of the paucity of thinking that must go on inside your head. You could be unique mate.
Bob
That's exactly what I'm saying. Of course there are examples of where these contracts are being used in the way you describe. The world of work isn't perfect. However the image you paint is one where these contracts are being used the way you describe in the vast majority if not all cases.
This is patently untrue. A little bit of basic research would conclusively prove this point. You obviously haven't bothered looking at the evidence out there. Well I have. I don't just believe soundbites from the likes of red Ed. You obviously do.
In future don't just disbelieve what I post. I am the voice of reason and can always back up my statements. I defy you to back up your warped view of zero hours contracts.
I won't hold my breath waiting as you won't be able to. Now get an abject apology sorted and I'll do my best to forgive your breathtaking ignorance.
-
haha love this, "I don't need to provide evidence because it's common knowledge"... :thumbsup:
It's his standard cop-out when he can't prove anything...!
Evidence man. Where is it? Where are those abject apologies you owe me?
Look, I'm prepared to let you off on those other abject apologies you owe me if you give me one for this latest slanderous insult. You only had to Google it I said to fill in the gaps in your ignorance. You obviously can't be bothered so I have gone to the trouble for you and your lleftie mates that don't believe me.
I suggest you all read the following article and then form an orderly line to issue me with your abject apologies. They will be immediately accepted with good grace and we can put this sorry matter behind us. I'll just give the first paragraph from the article as I know a lot of you don't have very long attention spans and may not feel able to read the full article. Here it is. Read it and weep (and apologise).
UK workers on zero-hours contracts are more likely to be happy with their work-life balance than other staff, a survey suggests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
I have read that article. Please point out to me the shred of evidence it gives to your own words:
It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
because I can't see any.
When you tell people to use Google because the evidence is out there and then you can't even find any yourself it doesn't inspire any confidence in your self-proclaimed 'expertise'.
Ffs. You are beyond hope. The seventh paragraph says 'The survey found four out of five respondents on zero-hours contracts said they were never penalised if they were unavailable for work'. Got it? Get it? Good.
I can easily provide more conclusive evidence if you really want me to make you look dafter than you already do. You decide.
Now where is that abject apology? Get on with it man.
-
haha love this, "I don't need to provide evidence because it's common knowledge"... :thumbsup:
It's his standard cop-out when he can't prove anything...!
Evidence man. Where is it? Where are those abject apologies you owe me?
Look, I'm prepared to let you off on those other abject apologies you owe me if you give me one for this latest slanderous insult. You only had to Google it I said to fill in the gaps in your ignorance. You obviously can't be bothered so I have gone to the trouble for you and your lleftie mates that don't believe me.
I suggest you all read the following article and then form an orderly line to issue me with your abject apologies. They will be immediately accepted with good grace and we can put this sorry matter behind us. I'll just give the first paragraph from the article as I know a lot of you don't have very long attention spans and may not feel able to read the full article. Here it is. Read it and weep (and apologise).
UK workers on zero-hours contracts are more likely to be happy with their work-life balance than other staff, a survey suggests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
I have read that article. Please point out to me the shred of evidence it gives to your own words:
It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
because I can't see any.
When you tell people to use Google because the evidence is out there and then you can't even find any yourself it doesn't inspire any confidence in your self-proclaimed 'expertise'.
Ffs. You are beyond hope. The seventh paragraph says 'The survey found four out of five respondents on zero-hours contracts said they were never penalised if they were unavailable for work'. Got it? Get it? Good.
I can easily provide more conclusive evidence if you really want me to make you look dafter than you already do. You decide.
Now where is that abject apology? Get on with it man.
Pathetic. Not being penalised for not working does not equate to working what hours they want in any way at all.
Provide more conclusive evidence? Any at all would be nice.
-
There's nothing wrong with the zero hours concept. You lefties always look at it from an employee point of view and never consider the employer. It just so happens that this type of contract also suits the employee. It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
What about the employer? I know you lefties hate all employers but why should they have to pay for staff they don't need? Quite often due to fluctuating customer demand staff numbers need to be flexible. You lefties are only happy if businesses have too many staff. You're not bothered about how efficient they are and whether the burden of full time contacts and all the associated benefits put companies out of business.
It's time you lefties realised it is a competitive world and only the most efficient companies will survive. Not using zero hours contracts would be commercial suicide.
Speaks a man who obviously knows as much about the negative effect of zhc as I do piddling up a wall.
Nothing before you ask.
-
Its common knowledge that zero hours contracts are hated by most employees and abused by most employers ;)
I fully disagree on this. We have staff on them that love them. They work for some people but not for others.
The labour zero hours pledge would be a bit more palatable though if Doncaster council wasn't the biggest user of them. Sort your own guys out first Ed!
-
Its common knowledge that zero hours contracts are hated by most employees and abused by most employers ;)
I fully disagree on this. We have staff on them that love them. They work for some people but not for others.
The labour zero hours pledge would be a bit more palatable though if Doncaster council wasn't the biggest user of them. Sort your own guys out first Ed!
I think the key word in Daggers post is most.
The Government keep championing the headline there are less people out of work, there are n't, what they should say is the truth, there are less people claiming benefits, because they've been thrown off benefits, sanctioned, forced into taking zero hour contracts and then made to jump through hoops to get their benefit back, often leaving people worse off by rules introduced by silver spooned millionaires!
-
Its common knowledge that zero hours contracts are hated by most employees and abused by most employers ;)
I fully disagree on this. We have staff on them that love them. They work for some people but not for others.
The labour zero hours pledge would be a bit more palatable though if Doncaster council wasn't the biggest user of them. Sort your own guys out first Ed!
I think the key word in Daggers post is most.
The Government keep championing the headline there are less people out of work, there are n't, what they should say is the truth, there are less people claiming benefits, because they've been thrown off benefits, sanctioned, forced into taking zero hour contracts and then made to jump through hoops to get their benefit back, often leaving people worse off by rules introduced by silver spooned millionaires!
Quite correct Filo
-
Its common knowledge that zero hours contracts are hated by most employees and abused by most employers ;)
I fully disagree on this. We have staff on them that love them. They work for some people but not for others.
The labour zero hours pledge would be a bit more palatable though if Doncaster council wasn't the biggest user of them. Sort your own guys out first Ed!
I think the key word in Daggers post is most.
The Government keep championing the headline there are less people out of work, there are n't, what they should say is the truth, there are less people claiming benefits, because they've been thrown off benefits, sanctioned, forced into taking zero hour contracts and then made to jump through hoops to get their benefit back, often leaving people worse off by rules introduced by silver spooned millionaires!
Typical leftie drivel that is so far off the mark it beggars belief.
You lefties really make my piss boil. You have an agenda to paint the Tories as evil people putting benefits claimants onto zero hour contracts that are totally designed for the benefit of the employer. What a load of total b*llocks.
I'm going to allow a bit of time to allow the people that have made such fools of themselves to either delete their posts or to apologise abjectly before I do a total demolition job on their ridiculous assertions.
Over to you.
-
Right, time is nearly up. Tonight I'm going to do the total demolition job. I'd get some of those laughable posts removed if I were you.
You know who you are.
-
I can't wait!
Who killed Lucy Beale last night and demolition of the lefties tonight, I don't think I can take anymore suspense :)
-
I challenge IC1967 to post for a month without once using the word "leftie".
-
I challenge IC1967 to post for a month without once using the word "leftie".
Or abject
-
haha love this, "I don't need to provide evidence because it's common knowledge"... :thumbsup:
It's his standard cop-out when he can't prove anything...!
Evidence man. Where is it? Where are those abject apologies you owe me?
Look, I'm prepared to let you off on those other abject apologies you owe me if you give me one for this latest slanderous insult. You only had to Google it I said to fill in the gaps in your ignorance. You obviously can't be bothered so I have gone to the trouble for you and your lleftie mates that don't believe me.
I suggest you all read the following article and then form an orderly line to issue me with your abject apologies. They will be immediately accepted with good grace and we can put this sorry matter behind us. I'll just give the first paragraph from the article as I know a lot of you don't have very long attention spans and may not feel able to read the full article. Here it is. Read it and weep (and apologise).
UK workers on zero-hours contracts are more likely to be happy with their work-life balance than other staff, a survey suggests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
I have read that article. Please point out to me the shred of evidence it gives to your own words:
It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
because I can't see any.
When you tell people to use Google because the evidence is out there and then you can't even find any yourself it doesn't inspire any confidence in your self-proclaimed 'expertise'.
Ffs. You are beyond hope. The seventh paragraph says 'The survey found four out of five respondents on zero-hours contracts said they were never penalised if they were unavailable for work'. Got it? Get it? Good.
I can easily provide more conclusive evidence if you really want me to make you look dafter than you already do. You decide.
Now where is that abject apology? Get on with it man.
Pathetic. Not being penalised for not working does not equate to working what hours they want in any way at all.
Provide more conclusive evidence? Any at all would be nice.
Are you for real? Can't you understand plain English? I'll try once more so maybe you might finally understand. If an employee is on a zero hours contract this means the employer can offer hours to an employee to suit the employer's requirements. Some weeks it might be 40, some weeks it might be 0, or somewhere in between. The employee also has the right to decline what is offered. For example, the employer might offer 40 hours and the employee might decide they only want to work 20. That is it in a nutshell. There is give and take on both sides.
Now read that paragraph again that I pointed out to you and view it in the context of the above paragraph.
'The survey found four out of five respondents on zero-hours contracts said they were never penalised if they were unavailable for work'.
You really should have been able to suss it out first time but here's hoping you might get it at the the third time of asking.
You really have made yourself look daft by disputing the evidence I provided. Didn't they teach basic comprehension of the English language at the school you went to?
Now get that abject apology sorted pronto.
-
What is currently happening is that the ner do wells and idlers have been excluded from the benefits system by sanctions.
So they get ESA or commit crime.
Mark my words,there has been a noticeable increase in violent acquisitive crime recently,just thumb through the crime pages of the Star since the month began.
It's all well and good to encourage the ner do wells to get themselves into the prison system permanently ,unfortunately the Crack pot Tories have ground our Police service into the dust,hence it makes sense to a criminal in Stainy /Thorne to correctly assume that they can leisurely help themselves to a JCB drive it 5 miles to a cash machine and merrily use it to wrench the Cashpoint out of its wall and drive off, safe in the knowledge that the Plods wiill be a long time coming! :suicide:
-
Right, anyone reading the leftie drivel on this thread would be forgiven for thinking that zero hours contracts are the worst kind of employment practice that is used by employers in collusion with the government. Lefties would have you believe that they are:
a) immoral
b) obscene
c) exploitative
d) downright dangerous
e) so bad they should be illegal
f) totally loaded in favour of the employer in terms of what the employee has to work
g) hated by most employees
h) abused by most employers
i) used to force people off benefits
All the above assertions by various lefties on this forum are totally untrue and have not been backed up by a single piece of evidence. I accept that some employers do abuse this type of contract but they are a small minority. Overall, zero hours contracts are loved by the vast majority of employees and employers. You wouldn't think so though would you if your first brush with these contracts was reading about them on this thread or listening to Labour politicians demonising them at every opportunity.
Here is the truth.
The office for national statistics reckons there are 250,000 people on this type of contract. That is less than 1% of the workforce.
The survey I mentioned and posted a link to earlier in the thread stated that 80% were happy to be on these contracts. So doing basic maths it would appear that there must be 50,000 who are not happy with them. That is less than 0.2% of the total workforce. Out of that 0.2% it was found that 80% of them would rather have a zero hours contract than be out of work. So we are left with a figure of 10,000 who are on them that don't like them. That is less than 0.04% of the workforce.
So all this political posturing by Labour is all about less than 0.04% of the workforce. All this leftie propaganda is all about 0.04% of the workforce. You wouldn't have thought so though would you. If you believed Labour and the lefties on this forum you'd be forgiven for thinking that this type of contract is what most people are now on.
It is a fact that zero hours contracts, make for very flexible working arrangements for employers and workers alike.
It is a fact that 80% of employees on zhc like them.
It is a fact that without zhc there would be more unemployment and businesses would be less competitive.
It is a fact that employers don't have to offer work to people on zero-hours contracts, and similarly, neither do zero-hours workers have to accept the work offered to them.
It is a fact that zero-hours staff are, in many circumstances, entitled to the same rights, protections and benefits as any other worker such as statutory annual leave entitlement and protection from discrimination.
It is a fact that zhc workers are covered by Working Time Regulations and National Minimum Wage provisions.
I could go on, but hopefully any right minded person is now aware that they have been reading leftie drivel from most of the posters on this forum who don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Here are a couple of links for further reading and education on the subject. One is from the CBI (cue howls of outrage from lefties) and one is from ACAS (hopefully the lefties won't be unhappy with this source).
http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/2628041/zero_hours_contracts.pdf
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4499
Game, set and match.
Now, all you totally discredited lefties, I would appreciate it if you could crack on with your abject apologies. You know you should.
-
I think you'll find the toadying righy cretins form an even smaller propettion of the workforce. Yet their demands, immorla and divisive as they are, are being met, consistently, by this cretinous government.
You still haven't mentioned, btw, your understanding of the world 'polemical'. I assume, therefore, that it must just pass you by. Like most things that require a degree of intelligence sadly.
BobG
-
I think you'll find the toadying righy cretins form an even smaller propettion of the workforce. Yet their demands, immorla and divisive as they are, are being met, consistently, by this cretinous government.
You still haven't mentioned, btw, your understanding of the world 'polemical'. I assume, therefore, that it must just pass you by. Like most things that require a degree of intelligence sadly.
BobG
Call that an abject apology. Pathetic. I've got you bang to 'rights' and that's the best you can come up with. No counter claim, no evidence to back up your fatuous statements. Typical.
What do you do instead? You play the man. Something you criticise me for. Unbelievable. You do it all the time whereas I always discuss the issue and provide evidence. When was the last time you ever provided any evidence?
Now get that abject apology sorted. It's the least you should do.
IC1967
-
OK daft lad
most on here know I have been long term sick for about 9 months after major spinal surgery (for the second time in 5 years) I never planned it shit happens to everybody at some point,, eventually my ssp stopped and my company stopped paying company sick pay, so I claimed employment support benefit, I am technically still on the companies books, However I wasn't entitled apart from some contribution based, basically I had paid in for the last 40 odd years so they would give me some back, fair comment.
However the reasons I wasn't entitled, my wife has a part time job as a lollipop lady taking home a fantastic £150 a month for standing out in all weathers for 2 hours a day, she enjoys seeing the little uns working there way through primary and eventually leaving the "big school" she's done it for donkeys years, however she is also the main carer for my 90 odd year old dementia suffering Dad (amongst other problems)who lives a few doors away saving the council thousands upon thousands every month, however the carers allowance that is paid to her is taken into account in HER income when claims are being made by me for my ill health, when it is paid to look after him basically 24/7.
Now on top of that we now have to have carers coming in morning and night to get him up and get him to bed,(as I said I have had major spinal surgery so lifting etc is basically out of the question) and we provide cover if his alarms go off at night, (oh and he has to pay nearly £50 a quarter for the specialist alarms and cover he needs) the Social say he must have two people at all times as his mobility is virtually non existent he can just about stand, this costs him £650 per month because he looked after things when he was younger and has got a "pit pension" which even though he is 90 odd he gets taxed on! although that is well over half of his pension(the house still has to be kept up and utility bills council tax still have to be paid)
and then the Dwp in there wisdom send us a letter saying if I am still claiming Esb in so many months we may have to pull your partner in for a "employment assessment interview" now could you please explain to me how trying to send my wife out to work full time (because I am ill) is going save them money because Dad would be straight into a care home as there would be nobody to look after him and believe me he is happier and gets better looked after in his own home!
now if my Dad hadn't bothered when he was younger......................................................guess what
Is it right is it hell and guess who's made most of these rules up..........
Oh and by the way I haven't been a burden to the NHS as I have private health insurance which is a legacy part of my contract at work although most other terms and conditions have changed we fought to keep that bit and believe me through no fault of my own and with no intention I've cost Bupa a pretty fair amount!
-
I'm not sure why you are directing this post at me. From what you say no one in your family is a scrounger. No one in your family is being forced into work on a zero hours contract.
For the record, I think there should be more benefits available for your family. If there were less scroungers then maybe this would be the case.
-
Mick, I like the way you have produced a comprehensive and foolproof answer to Glyn's questioning of your statements that zero hour contracts are good for people because:
It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
with
F-fs. You are beyond hope. The seventh paragraph says 'The survey found four out of five respondents on zero-hours contracts said they were never penalised if they were unavailable for work'. Got it? Get it? Good.
and
Are you for real? Can't you understand plain English? I'll try once more so maybe you might finally understand. If an employee is on a zero hours contract this means the employer can offer hours to an employee to suit the employer's requirements. Some weeks it might be 40, some weeks it might be 0, or somewhere in between. The employee also has the right to decline what is offered. For example, the employer might offer 40 hours and the employee might decide they only want to work 20. That is it in a nutshell. There is give and take on both sides.
Now read that paragraph again that I pointed out to you and view it in the context of the above paragraph.
'The survey found four out of five respondents on zero-hours contracts said they were never penalised if they were unavailable for work'.
so if you can just clarify one thing for me please, if an employee wishes to work 20 hours per week and an employer offers zero - how many hours will the employee work and how does this fit in with your above statements?
Also what is the date of your ONS survey?
And were there any other surveys taken around the same time that show your figures may be a little on the 'low' side?
-
Wilts, for some incomprehensible reason Mick seems to think that there is 'give and take' on both sides and the hours offered/worked are up for negotiation , when everybody but Mick knows that what happens is that the employer will instead tell an awkward employee who wants to argue about the hours to piss off so that they can offer those hours to someone else more biddable and will do what the employer wants without arguing about it because they're desperate enough. So lets leave out the 'give and take' b*llocks and have a serious reply, eh Mick?
-
Glyn, Mick's actual words, up there in black and grey were 'It allows them to work when they want'. I am interested in how the answer to my question, 'If an employee wishes to work 20 yours and an emplyer offers zero, how many hours will they work?' confirms that statement. Also how it confirms (or not) his point f above?
-
Mick, I like the way you have produced a comprehensive and foolproof answer to Glyn's questioning of your statements that zero hour contracts are good for people because:
It allows them to work when they want to instead of being stuck in a job with rigid hours.
with
F-fs. You are beyond hope. The seventh paragraph says 'The survey found four out of five respondents on zero-hours contracts said they were never penalised if they were unavailable for work'. Got it? Get it? Good.
and
Are you for real? Can't you understand plain English? I'll try once more so maybe you might finally understand. If an employee is on a zero hours contract this means the employer can offer hours to an employee to suit the employer's requirements. Some weeks it might be 40, some weeks it might be 0, or somewhere in between. The employee also has the right to decline what is offered. For example, the employer might offer 40 hours and the employee might decide they only want to work 20. That is it in a nutshell. There is give and take on both sides.
Now read that paragraph again that I pointed out to you and view it in the context of the above paragraph.
'The survey found four out of five respondents on zero-hours contracts said they were never penalised if they were unavailable for work'.
so if you can just clarify one thing for me please, if an employee wishes to work 20 hours per week and an employer offers zero - how many hours will the employee work and how does this fit in with your above statements?
Also what is the date of your ONS survey?
And were there any other surveys taken around the same time that show your figures may be a little on the 'low' side?
Hahaha! I can see you are really struggling to try and make out that I'm wrong. Fair play to you for trying to have a go anyway. It is noticeable how quiet everyone else is.
The answer is very easy to work out. I'm surprised you couldn't do it yourself. As I am a magnanimous soul I'll answer it for you. If an employee wants to work 20 and the employer offers 0 then the employee will not work any hours. Got it? Get it? Good.
Does this fit in with my statement? Of course it does. In my statement the employee was offered 40 hours not 0. So if offered 40 then the employee can decide to work 20. Got it? Get it? Good.
Date of the ONS survey? 2012. It is interesting to note that zhc's were used for the same percentage of the total workforce in 2000 (under Labour) as were on them in 2012 under the Tories! Typical Labour being economical withe the truth the way they have convinced all you lefties that everyone is now on them.
Look if it makes you feel better, I'm quite happy for you to increase my figures by a factor of 10 if you want. This would still mean that only 0.4% of the total workforce don't like them. Got it? Get it? Good.
Look, it is not my intention to make you look daft. You have been braver than all the other lefties by trying to dispute what I say. For that you deserve credit. However in future I'd be very careful disputing statements that I make. I know my stuff and can always back up everything I say. It is noticeable that I'm the only one that has provided any evidence in this debate.
All you lefties would do well to do some research before spouting off on a subject you know very little about.
-
I think if they paid them minimum wage and they only did enough hours to cover what benefits they earn then it's a good idea, but no1 should be made to work for less than the minimum wage. I think the dole is 70 a week so say if they did 10 hours a week that would be fine
-
Wilts, for some incomprehensible reason Mick seems to think that there is 'give and take' on both sides and the hours offered/worked are up for negotiation , when everybody but Mick knows that what happens is that the employer will instead tell an awkward employee who wants to argue about the hours to piss off so that they can offer those hours to someone else more biddable and will do what the employer wants without arguing about it because they're desperate enough. So lets leave out the 'give and take' b*llocks and have a serious reply, eh Mick?
Look, you never know when to back off and admit defeat. You start digging a hole and you forget to stop. Your statement is so way off the mark it beggars belief.
I'll have one more go at explaining it to you in the vain hope you might actually get it this time.
The hours that are available for work is up to the employer. To remain efficient and competitive employers don't want to be paying for staff to be stood around twiddling their thumbs. So the number of hours available is totally up to the employer. Seems reasonable to me.
Next, after the employer has decided how many hours are available he offers them to the employee. At this point the employee can tell the employer how many hours he wishes to work. For example if the employer offers say 40 then the employee can work anywhere between 0 and 40. Got it? Get it? Good.
Now I'd delete all your statements on zhc's if I were you. They are completely at odds with what is actually happening in the real world. I'd do it quickly if I were you before too many more people see the drivel you have spouted.
Now get on with that abject apology. You owe me that many now I've lost count. As I am a kindhearted soul I'll let you have an amnesty. Just get one abject apology sorted and I'll forget about all the others you owe me. Just get on with it man. You know you should.
-
I think if they paid them minimum wage and they only did enough hours to cover what benefits they earn then it's a good idea, but no1 should be made to work for less than the minimum wage. I think the dole is 70 a week so say if they did 10 hours a week that would be fine
I can see where you're coming from. What you are saying in effect is that people should get a job. That's what the government are trying to get the workshy to do.
The policy is only really aimed at the workshy. There is no excuse for anyone that is fit and able for not getting a job that pays more than the dole. Unfortunately there are many scroungers that are quite happy to do nothing and live off benefits. This policy will reduce that number.
Then maybe, the likes of Dagger's family will be better looked after by the state.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23554409
You feel bullied. You start at 06:30am, could work till 11:30am, then be told there's no more work for you today," explains Karen
"But if you say you can't work that day they don't tend to ring you again because they say you're not turning up - it makes you feel unworthy
"They make it quite clear when you start - you've got no employment rights and no job security until you've been employed for two years. And now they want to terminate me."
If we ever turned down a shift then they'd (employers) see us as unreliable and cut our hours for weeks to come," insists one 18-year-old who works for 1st Energy in Essex
One 40-year-old further education teacher has told the BBC that she is still living with her mum because her zero-hours contract prevents her saving for a deposit and getting a mortgage.
"One month you could be earning £1,000, the next it could be £600. It's incredibly frustrating," she says.
It meant his shifts could suddenly be cancelled at just 24-hours notice and it could be weeks before there was more work.
"I'd have the landlord screaming at me for the rent," he says. "The fridge would be empty. I'd have to lean on friends for help, I've slept on sofas - lots of us did. It's the only way to keep going."
I know your just being an argumentative dick Mick, and you most likely don't agree with much of what you google, copy and paste, and I should n't really respond to your wumming, but the above quotes suggest you're wrong on zero hours contracts
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23554409
You feel bullied. You start at 06:30am, could work till 11:30am, then be told there's no more work for you today," explains Karen
"But if you say you can't work that day they don't tend to ring you again because they say you're not turning up - it makes you feel unworthy
"They make it quite clear when you start - you've got no employment rights and no job security until you've been employed for two years. And now they want to terminate me."
If we ever turned down a shift then they'd (employers) see us as unreliable and cut our hours for weeks to come," insists one 18-year-old who works for 1st Energy in Essex
One 40-year-old further education teacher has told the BBC that she is still living with her mum because her zero-hours contract prevents her saving for a deposit and getting a mortgage.
"One month you could be earning £1,000, the next it could be £600. It's incredibly frustrating," she says.
It meant his shifts could suddenly be cancelled at just 24-hours notice and it could be weeks before there was more work.
"I'd have the landlord screaming at me for the rent," he says. "The fridge would be empty. I'd have to lean on friends for help, I've slept on sofas - lots of us did. It's the only way to keep going."
I know your just being an argumentative dick Mick, and you most likely don't agree with much of what you google, copy and paste, and I should n't really respond to your wumming, but the above quotes suggest you're wrong on zero hours contracts
No way it does. A few anecdotes from the tiny percentage of the workforce does not prove me wrong. I've already said these contracts are sometimes abused by employers. It is indisputable fact that the vast majority of employees like zhc's. It is indisputable fact that only a tiny percentage of employees are on zhc's.
That is the truth.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23554409
You feel bullied. You start at 06:30am, could work till 11:30am, then be told there's no more work for you today," explains Karen
"But if you say you can't work that day they don't tend to ring you again because they say you're not turning up - it makes you feel unworthy
"They make it quite clear when you start - you've got no employment rights and no job security until you've been employed for two years. And now they want to terminate me."
If we ever turned down a shift then they'd (employers) see us as unreliable and cut our hours for weeks to come," insists one 18-year-old who works for 1st Energy in Essex
One 40-year-old further education teacher has told the BBC that she is still living with her mum because her zero-hours contract prevents her saving for a deposit and getting a mortgage.
"One month you could be earning £1,000, the next it could be £600. It's incredibly frustrating," she says.
It meant his shifts could suddenly be cancelled at just 24-hours notice and it could be weeks before there was more work.
"I'd have the landlord screaming at me for the rent," he says. "The fridge would be empty. I'd have to lean on friends for help, I've slept on sofas - lots of us did. It's the only way to keep going."
I know your just being an argumentative dick Mick, and you most likely don't agree with much of what you google, copy and paste, and I should n't really respond to your wumming, but the above quotes suggest you're wrong on zero hours contracts
No way it does. A few anecdotes from the tiny percentage of the workforce does not prove me wrong. I've already said these contracts are sometimes abused by employers. It is indisputable fact that the vast majority of employees like zhc's. It is indisputable fact that only a tiny percentage of employees are on zhc's.
That is the truth.
Selective quoting Mick, you're a big fan of that are n't you?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23554409
You feel bullied. You start at 06:30am, could work till 11:30am, then be told there's no more work for you today," explains Karen
"But if you say you can't work that day they don't tend to ring you again because they say you're not turning up - it makes you feel unworthy
"They make it quite clear when you start - you've got no employment rights and no job security until you've been employed for two years. And now they want to terminate me."
If we ever turned down a shift then they'd (employers) see us as unreliable and cut our hours for weeks to come," insists one 18-year-old who works for 1st Energy in Essex
One 40-year-old further education teacher has told the BBC that she is still living with her mum because her zero-hours contract prevents her saving for a deposit and getting a mortgage.
"One month you could be earning £1,000, the next it could be £600. It's incredibly frustrating," she says.
It meant his shifts could suddenly be cancelled at just 24-hours notice and it could be weeks before there was more work.
"I'd have the landlord screaming at me for the rent," he says. "The fridge would be empty. I'd have to lean on friends for help, I've slept on sofas - lots of us did. It's the only way to keep going."
I know your just being an argumentative dick Mick, and you most likely don't agree with much of what you google, copy and paste, and I should n't really respond to your wumming, but the above quotes suggest you're wrong on zero hours contracts
No way it does. A few anecdotes from the tiny percentage of the workforce does not prove me wrong. I've already said these contracts are sometimes abused by employers. It is indisputable fact that the vast majority of employees like zhc's. It is indisputable fact that only a tiny percentage of employees are on zhc's.
That is the truth.
Selective quoting Mick, you're a big fan of that are n't you?
Excuse me. You are the guilty party. I've not done any selective quoting. However, surprise ,surprise in the article you posted you indeed have been guilty of selective quoting. I'll give examples to prove the point below. I would also ask you to prove that I have been selective in my quoting. I haven't. I posted all the evidence I need to back me up. Don't bother because you won't be able to.
Right, now to prove that you are the guilty one. Here are some other quotes from the same article:
Some welcome the use of these contracts, arguing that they give employees flexibility over their own work schedules, as well as benefiting employers.
Calum, a 17-year-old housekeeper at the holiday operator Center Parcs, says having a zero-hours contract enables him and other students working there to fit work around their studies.
"The job suits me," he says.
Center Parcs spokesman Simon Kay says he cannot comment on individual cases but says: "We only offer this type of contract to employees who benefit from the flexibility."
However, another student working at a tourist attraction in Beer, Devon - who also wishes to remain anonymous - says he was just pleased to get the work.
"I'd been looking for a job for nine months," he says.
"I'm probably the best person to hire on this type of contract as I don't have to do any budgeting or family planning."
Responding to the comments, Pell and Bales chief executive Derwyn Jones says: "We try to provide our employees with the type of contract they want," pointing out that many staff are musicians, students or actors who appreciate the flexibility.
"At one end - in domestic care, retail, hotels - it's exploitative and pretty awful. But on the other hand, 25% [of workers on such contracts] are students and those in post-grad as teachers.
"For them it's probably a much better experience and gives a degree of flexibility."
All from the same article that you selectively quoted from! Unbelievable. Now get an abject apology sorted and I'll try and put this sorry mess behind us.
-
Even if he simply wumming Filo, the psychological make up of someone who can persist for so long in portraying himself as brain dead is fascinating. What sort of person can gain any pleasure at all from repeating ad nauseam the shite he does? It beggars belief tbh. I suspect, deep down, there's quite a few on here who feel quite sorry for him. I know I do. He's got a hard life ahead of him - whatever is left of it.
BobG
-
Even if he simply wumming Filo, the psychological make up of someone who can persist for so long in portraying himself as brain dead is fascinating. What sort of person can gain any pleasure at all from repeating ad nauseam the shite he does? It beggars belief tbh. I suspect, deep down, there's quite a few on here who feel quite sorry for him. I know I do. He's got a hard life ahead of him - whatever is left of it.
BobG
There you go again. Attacking the man. Why not try winning the debate instead by providing evidence for your ludicrous statements. You never do though do you. You lose then attack the man. Again. Pathetic.
We can all see it. Just admit you lefties don't have a clue about zhc's and all your drivel has been nothing more than an attempt to influence gullible people into thinking the wrong way about zhc's.
As the voice of reason I will continue to expose leftie drivel wherever I find it. In future back up your fatuous assertions or don't bother. Realise I'll be keeping an eye on you.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto. You'll feel so much better for it.
IC1967
-
Right. You've all had long enough. Where are my abject apologies? Get on with it will you and we can put this sorry matter behind us.