General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!

[Pet Jeden]

2 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Personally, no, I have never heard someone say this. That being said, even if someone did say that, and it was actually true, taking that job would still very likely leave them in relative poverty, so it wouldn't change a thing.

Yes, it's a logical decision. Short term

[Ross.]

2 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Yes, it's a logical decision. Short term

Not necessarily. Going back around 15 years I found myself out of work after a period of temping and short term contracts. I accepted a permanent job that was salaried but pretty much worked out as paying minimum wage, unless I met the bonus targets. Based on the basic salary and what I was paying in rent and council tax, I would have been as well off not working, as would most of my colleagues. In the time since, and through social media, I know that a fair number of the people I worked with are still there, and I know that the company involved still pays a very poor basic salary. If the targets they set now are anything like they were when I worked there, then most of those people are earning poverty wages, based on the UK figures for relative poverty. That is over a 15 year period, working 40-45 hours a week. If anyone refused that job, would you tell them they are thinking short term or that they are lazy?

[welshbairn]

27 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Well, you would have to expand on what is meant by "can't be bothered" to make sense of this. But, for instance, have you never heard any adult say a potential job is "not worth taking because "it doesn't pay much more than benefits"?

If he turned down or failed to apply for such a job he'd have his benefits sanctioned pronto. 

[Billy Jean King]

43 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Well, you would have to expand on what is meant by "can't be bothered" to make sense of this. But, for instance, have you never heard any adult say a potential job is "not worth taking because "it doesn't pay much more than benefits"?

Only on trash TV like Benefits Street etc. To do so would incur benefits sanctions but that's not to say it does not happen. I think everyone realises that there is a very small hard core in every society that has no intention of working and fully intend living on Benefits as long as they can but the numbers are tiny overall but they are bound to be areas with larger concentrations so if you live near or in such an area your impression might be skewed.

[Pet Jeden]

23 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Not necessarily. Going back around 15 years I found myself out of work after a period of temping and short term contracts. I accepted a permanent job that was salaried but pretty much worked out as paying minimum wage, unless I met the bonus targets. Based on the basic salary and what I was paying in rent and council tax, I would have been as well off not working, as would most of my colleagues. In the time since, and through social media, I know that a fair number of the people I worked with are still there, and I know that the company involved still pays a very poor basic salary. If the targets they set now are anything like they were when I worked there, then most of those people are earning poverty wages, based on the UK figures for relative poverty. That is over a 15 year period, working 40-45 hours a week. If anyone refused that job, would you tell them they are thinking short term or that they are lazy?

Would the person taking the job have expected to be still in it 15 years later? Probably not - so would it have been a reasonable thing to do to turn it down? You didn't. But here is the conundrum. Should the person who turned that job down get the same money from the state as the person who put up with working for 15 years for what sounds like a pretty scummy employer. (Surely with 15 years in the job their experience and loyalty is worth a bit more to the employer and/or they could have been trained into wider or more responsible roles)?

[Ross.]

1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

Would the person taking the job have expected to be still in it 15 years later? Probably not - so would it have been a reasonable thing to do to turn it down? You didn't. But here is the conundrum. Should the person who turned that job down get the same money from the state as the person who put up with working for 15 years for what sounds like a pretty scummy employer. (Surely with 15 years in the job their experience and loyalty is worth a bit more to the employer and/or they could have been trained into wider or more responsible roles)?

No, they shouldn't, but that isn't the fault of the person who is turning down the job.

[Pet Jeden]

3 minutes ago, Ross. said:

No, they shouldn't, but that isn't the fault of the person who is turning down the job.

No it's not. But is the state paying too much or is the employer paying too little?

[Ross.]

1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

No it's not. But is the state paying too much or is the employer paying too little?

The employer is paying too little and the state aids them in doing so.

[Pet Jeden]

17 minutes ago, Ross. said:

The employer is paying too little and the state aids them in doing so.

Do you mean by not setting minimum wage higher? Or by paying in-work benefits?

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

If he turned down or failed to apply for such a job he'd have his benefits sanctioned pronto. 

There are definitely other ways to make sure you're not getting that job.

I was on jobseekers for a few months after leaving uni. I was applying for the jobs I wanted but the rules were apply for something like 10 positions per week. Trawl the govt website, find 10 jobs that you'e unlikely to ever be hired for, send in an utterly shite CV. Get that done on a Monday morning. Spend the rest of the week working on applications for jobs you want.

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

There are definitely other ways to make sure you're not getting that job.

I was on jobseekers for a few months after leaving uni. I was applying for the jobs I wanted but the rules were apply for something like 10 positions per week. Trawl the govt website, find 10 jobs that you'e unlikely to ever be hired for, send in an utterly shite CV. Get that done on a Monday morning. Spend the rest of the week working on applications for jobs you want.

Was that before or after Universal Credit? I did the same in the olden days but had a brief experience of the new system and I don't think you'd get away with it anymore. They also monitor your daily activity on the website and ask for proof of 35 hours a week of job seeking, with the assumption that anything you say is a lie. Of course they have to teach you what lies are acceptable to cover the impossible 35 hours target. I was advised to say I walked to Nairn from Inverness and back for an interview to make up a few hours.

[Ross.]

41 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Do you mean by not setting minimum wage higher? Or by paying in-work benefits?

Both, amongst other things. Set the minimum wage higher and you don't need to subsidise the private profits, which essentially what in work benefits are. A subsidy to allow private companies to pay less.

[Gordon EF]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Was that before or after Universal Credit? I did the same in the olden days but had a brief experience of the new system and I don't think you'd get away with it anymore. They also monitor your daily activity on the website and ask for proof of 35 hours a week of job seeking, with the assumption that anything you say is a lie. Of course they have to teach you what lies are acceptable to cover the impossible 35 hours target. I was advised to say I walked to Nairn from Inverness and back for an interview to make up a few hours.

Jesus, well before that. 2013.

At that time it was a wee book that you had to fill in. It did toughen up from 'do 12 things a week' to 'apply for 12 jobs a week'. That's the point things started getting silly.

[Pet Jeden]

18 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Both, amongst other things. Set the minimum wage higher and you don't need to subsidise the private profits, which essentially what in work benefits are. A subsidy to allow private companies to pay less.

Mostly agree. The bigger nonsense though is the amount paid in Housing benefit - effectively subsidising landlords and rents.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Pet Jeden

[Malky3]

5 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

Somewhat racist in what way? Because I said "black"? Is the universe racist for simply being black as well?

Nope. Its because you stated that blacks in Africa had evolved to become wealthier than my Grandparents. It implies that the reason they were poor in the first place was because of their genetic make up and that they used to be genetically inferior to mt grandparents. 

I accept your intention wasn't racist. It was just a stupid and inappropriate reference. But it was somewhat racist. 

[Ross.]

1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

Mostly agree. The bigger nonsense though is the amount paid in Housing benefit - effectively a subsidy to landlords and rents.

If nothing else, there have at least been moves in the last few years to try and curb this. Too little too late, probably. I think the Scottish Governments approach is correct, in terms of charging a levy for every additional property you buy that won't be your primary residence. My only criticism there is that the levy isn't high enough.

[Baxter Parp]

Well, you would have to expand on what is meant by "can't be bothered" to make sense of this. But, for instance, have you never heard any adult say a potential job is "not worth taking because "it doesn't pay much more than benefits"?

Given the scrutiny/demonisation of the DWP and the level of benefits received after years of benefit freezes means this is a middle class fantasy.

[Kuro]

52 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

There are definitely other ways to make sure you're not getting that job.

I was on jobseekers for a few months after leaving uni. I was applying for the jobs I wanted but the rules were apply for something like 10 positions per week. Trawl the govt website, find 10 jobs that you'e unlikely to ever be hired for, send in an utterly shite CV. Get that done on a Monday morning. Spend the rest of the week working on applications for jobs you want.

You.could also write NAZI on your face so if you ever.get.an interview you'll still be okay.

[DAFC.]

Can you confirm there are enough barrels of oil left to fund your tartan utopia dream? I’d like to have facts rather than just ‘Janey Godley says so’.

According to an expert unionist, you can flog them down the Barras furra fiver. Imagine my dismay when all I could get down there for a fiver at the weekend was fake tobacco and a Nutella crepe.

[Malky3]

4 hours ago, AUFC90 said:

Anyone that believes that Scotland is suddenly responsible for 60% of the UK deficit is thick as pig shit imo.

You still doing that routine....