Jump to content

Simple Question


Ludo*1

Recommended Posts

Is it fair for a person to claim benefits if they'd be better off by doing so than they would be if they could gain employment?

Situation seen all over the country. And Michael Gove on QT tonight said that people should 'do the right thing'.

Just wonder what peoples thoughts on this cause it's obviously a massive issue and there's the thought process that people who work are paying for people that don't and also, the people that do work, are often just equal or in some occasions, worse off than people that don't. But then again, why work if you're not going to be better off than you are unemployed?

Selfish or fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An MP, of all people, telling people to forgo benefits and work for less money while they cream in more wages and expenses than they could ever dream of in normal employment.

The ironing is delicious.

But then again, it was Michael Gove. And Michael Gove is a c**t.

MichaelGoveMPandPob.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way would it be immoral?! Do people actually believe this shite?! Do you really think life is about having a job, no matter how unhappy you are, just to say you have a job? Or do you believe that people should be happy?

This obsession with work and having a job and the whole "a job's a job!" bullshit is fucking horrible and pointless. No wonder so many folk are suffering from stress and mental health problems when they're pushed in to a job they don't like just so they can 'have a job' and are told over and over that it's somehow wrong not to have one and that you are scrounging scum if you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking to a former workmate late night who still works for a well known multinational drinks company. The companies latest ploy is to subcontract part of the business to a transport company and tell the workforce to eiher transfer to the contractors or be paid off. If they move to the new company the wages are at least £6 less per hour and quite possibly these people will qualify for benefits while the parent company are still making billions in profit. Thatchers britain right enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT: Bob, I'm no legal expert (of which there are a few on here who can correct me) but I think under TUPE your mate would have his current salary protected after that transfer and if it were not he would have legal grounds to resign and challenge legally for constructive dismissal:

If an employee is dismissed either before or after a transfer and the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the transfer, it will be automatically unfair.

Employees who believe that their terms and conditions have been substantially changed to their detriment before or after a transfer have the right to terminate their employment and claim constructive unfair dismissal at a tribunal. TUPE classifies these types of resignations as dismissals.

I think the last time TUPE was used in my workplace to transfre employees to a third party to perform teh same function the period of protection for current Ts and Cs was 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it fair for a person to claim benefits if they'd be better off by doing so than they would be if they could gain employment?

Situation seen all over the country. And Michael Gove on QT tonight said that people should 'do the right thing'.

Just wonder what peoples thoughts on this cause it's obviously a massive issue and there's the thought process that people who work are paying for people that don't and also, the people that do work, are often just equal or in some occasions, worse off than people that don't. But then again, why work if you're not going to be better off than you are unemployed?

Selfish or fair?

The crux of the benefits issue viz working or not is that we (taxpayers) pay so that greedy employers get to dole out piss poor wages while the public purse cops it topping up those wages.

The unemployed? They get to work for nothing. Sorry, their dole money.

Either way, we're paying a fortune to the exchequer only for fat cat motherfuckers to exploit the system and blame the poor for being poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT: Bob, I'm no legal expert (of which there are a few on here who can correct me) but I think under TUPE your mate would have his current salary protected after that transfer and if it were not he would have legal grounds to resign and challenge legally for constructive dismissal:

I think the last time TUPE was used in my workplace to transfre employees to a third party to perform teh same function the period of protection for current Ts and Cs was 2 years.

Thanks for the info Gaz, I was only quoting what the guy had heard was going on in good faith. Thought myself it might be a bit different but knowing the company I wouldn't put it past them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...