No skill jobs such as retail pay the bare minimum they can get away with, I applied for a job in tesco and asda as a shelf stacker and would have been paid £6 or so an hour, and would need to do a 50 hour week to make what I did in the school doing 30 hours!
Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
Agreed. I have no issue with people if they can't afford it, but a few I have interviewed have actually said (and I quote) "I am only here to keep the job seekers happy" outside of the interview. One was a genuine case and as you said, we pointed him to a charity shop to pick up a suit (he managed to pick up an armani suit for £12!!!) and he got the job. I am more than happy to help people.
They can be. If a claimant attends an interview and conducts themselves in a manner they know will disqualify them for a job then it is dealt with as if they failed to turn up for the interview. I have grassed people up for this before. The problem about clothing is that they might not own a suit, or even shirt and tie. If they can reasonably explain that they do intend to be appropriately dressed if they get the job then this is fine. I would not like to discriminate against people just because they are below the breadline. I know of schools who, when people have turned up poorly dressed for interviews, put them in touch with local charities who can help on that side until the wage comes rolling in. It is a hand up, not a hand out.
Those that have paid into the system yes deserve something, but there are some of those people that have worked and now stay on benefits as its easier.
You can't complain about people who never worked and with no intention of working and then try to lump into there people who have worked (like yourself) and have no job at the moment. That sort of attitude might be fine with the daily fail readership who want to see their taxes only spent on them, but is not a realistic position. It deals with a small minority and is used to justify attitudes against *all* those claiming benefits, including those on disability support.
I am not saying nationalise the services on the whole, but have a nationalised service running along side the private companies - whether it is trains, buses, fuel, energy, whatever. I suggested the coal mines as an example btw. As for banks, yes I agree.
The mines? You are kidding? Nationalisation of core services? Do you understand the relationship between growth in profits and growth in jobs? The mines were not profitable for many years. It is a very inefficient way of getting energy and the investment needed (from our taxes) is unlikely to see any payback in the near future. I think it was the Express who ran an article about this as an idea around 3 years ago and got most of the figures wrong. Nationalisation or energy companies would also take investment we don't have. You then also run into the problem we are having with the attitude to the banks we have large chunks in ... We want them to make a profit as this pays back the investment the state has made. The people who can do this want a wage (and perks) equivalent to what they would get in other banks ... And yet we moan about the wages they get. The same will happen in anything you nationalise. You have to pay the equivalent rates as they would get elsewhere ... Unless you add an extra bit to it ... Public service. The idea that you are doing a public service is no longer seen as a high priority, partly because it is not portrayed as something rewarding. In fact the same media will have a go at anything they can which promotes public service, unless they can jump on a bandwagon, or happily publish / show others knocking it too. It doesn't help when you have politicians from all side who do the same.
OK, you have me on that one, but something does need to give!
Saying we need wholesale reform is not going to work either, as this is just part of politics. There are too few cross department groups and too many conflicting agendas. Free schools is another way of saying "don't trust the state to give you children education" so why on earth would you trust the state to look after banks, energy, rail? We get told outsourcing to companies who have made profits running companies well is better than letting councils waste money. In the same voice we get told our NHS is the best in the world, but needs wholesale change ...
And yes, some of the above is correct, but try to read between the line and understand what is selective use of information to prove a point. I could spend all day pointing out where Mr Gove has been selective about his attitude on support staff in schools, or his use of data to justify his departments agenda. Others, however, do it far better than me.