[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How is a zero hr contract going to instill a work ethic if the work is part time and or sporadic?
It instills the worst message for me that you are not a valued member of an organisation, you are temporary and dispensable and that you have no pride or loyalty for or to the company.
Apprenticeships in many areas are a joke and used as cheap disposable labour in many areas, young people are undervalued and exploited by these practices.
If there's a full time position in a sandwich shop give them a job, don't call it apprentice sandwich technician to get away with paying £2 a hour :/

I agree that any job is better than benefits but as the cost of living is so high a fair days work deserves a fair days pay.

So you would rather 18 year olds were sat at home rather than gaining some experience though work, how is that going to help get them a job?, most of the people who are now in full time contracted employment at my school started off as volunteers or as bank staff, they proved their worth, that they can be punctual, can be a team players, etc etc, and it also means they have their foot in the door when contracted jobs come up, they can also avail of the training opportunities for free thereby increasing their employability we all have to start somewhere Kizzy, summer jobs, part time hours whatever it is, sometimes gaining employment is down to being in the right place at the right time, sitting at home that is never going to happen, so to my mind you could earn your 70.00 quid at home which will leave your CV blank or you can earn your 70.00 quid in a sandwich job which will give you skills you can take forward into another job.

[arista]

You Are Most Wise Cherie

[Kizzy]

As I said 0hr contracts aren't only an option for 18yr olds are they?
Any part time employee would show the same commitment hand have the same opportunities with regard to advancement or training, you don't have to be on a 0hr contract to show willing.

I wasn't suggesting sitting at home, in no part of my post did I infer that would be an alternative, I proposed that as adults they are paid a wage that allows them to know that work pays. The answer is to ensure they have the chance to earn enough to live at least, by removing benefits for this age group they literally have no choice but to be exploited as they enter the workforce.

You have to ask yourself too if there is a constant stream of young adults who have no choice but to work in these low skilled areas on these contracts or 'apprenticeships' how will this impact on those who are older and low skilled, with families to support..
Who will be the most attractive option to businesses looking to save money?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

As I said 0hr contracts aren't only an option for 18yr olds are they?
Any part time employee would show the same commitment hand have the same opportunities with regard to advancement or training, you don't have to be on a 0hr contract to show willing.

I wasn't suggesting sitting at home, in no part of my post did I infer that would be an alternative, I proposed that as adults they are paid a wage that allows them to know that work pays. The answer is to ensure they have the chance to earn enough to live at least, by removing benefits for this age group they literally have no choice but to be exploited as they enter the workforce.

You have to ask yourself too if there is a constant stream of young adults who have no choice but to work in these low skilled areas on these contracts or 'apprenticeships' how will this impact on those who are older and low skilled, with families to support..
Who will be the most attractive option to businesses looking to save money?

That is not the case now though Kizzy, in fact Apprenticeships are very difficult to come by, so if firms really wanted to tap into cheap labour, wouldn't everyone who wanted one be able to get an apprenticeship, taking on anyone who is unskilled will require effort and training on behalf of the employer, its not like people can just walk into any job and just be left to their own devices, they will require some level of supervision and training.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/B]

That is not the case now though Kizzy, in fact Apprenticeships are very difficult to come by, so if firms really wanted to tap into cheap labour, wouldn't everyone who wanted one be able to get an apprenticeship, taking on anyone who is unskilled will require effort and training on behalf of the employer, its not like people can just walk into any job and just be left to their own devices, they will require some level of supervision and training.

I'm not talking about real apprenticeships to be an electrician or plumber but the silly invented ones from the fast food, hospitality and care sector.
All jobs require a certain amount of training naturally no matter how low skilled of course, my point was employers will see the younger employees as a more attractive prospect due to them being cheaper to employ and train on these schemes,yet they will be doing the same work as others no doubt for half the money.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm not talking about real apprenticeships to be an electrician or plumber but the silly invented ones from the fast food, hospitality and care sector.
All jobs require a certain amount of training naturally no matter how low skilled of course, my point was employers will see the younger employees as a more attractive prospect due to them being cheaper to employ and train on these schemes,yet they will be doing the same work as others no doubt for half the money.

Spot on, no argument from me as to all that.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm not talking about real apprenticeships to be an electrician or plumber but the silly invented ones from the fast food, hospitality and care sector.
All jobs require a certain amount of training naturally no matter how low skilled of course, my point was employers will see the younger employees as a more attractive prospect due to them being cheaper to employ and train on these schemes,yet they will be doing the same work as others no doubt for half the money.

more cynical anti economics....all paymasters are vile exploitative people? lol...wrong. theyre the backbone of society and create ALL the wealth that pays for EVERYTHING IN SOCIETY....they also take all the risk and pressures....if anything goes wrong the buck stops with the employers...everyone risk just talks, employers entrepreneurs walk the walk

have you actually spoken to employers or are you another socialist who just assumes what employers will do? most employers want trustworthy relaible staff....older staff tend to be more stable and less likely to job hop....retraing staff endlessly is a costly exhaustingexpensive process. many would rather pay the extra few pounds anhour for the certainty and peace of mind

as for your absurd argument lets not put young healthy people into work in case they take jobs off other older people? what kind of logic is that? utter nonsense. there are places for reliable solid workers in all sectors. once a person is at work , their reliability honesty experience etc will make them more invaluable to employers and they will get more and more regular work and their wages will rise in time...other opportunities will also open up and in some cases these kids will decide to set up their own businesses too

this is the politics of optimism. this is what we need. not the politics of envy trying to squeeze every last penny from employers and risk takers....

the working tax credits are also a massive key as it the return to work schemes where job centres subsidise employers to train people for a few months....but working tax is the bridge off benefits to work and this scheme needs to be clearer and simpler to understand and better promoted......again in some cases you can get housing benefits and working tax and work. not everyone knows and understand that, theyre too scared to get off unemployment / incapacity. this is where dave cameron can really improve society. lucky for him he has a majority and autonomy free for europe to sort this mess out simply because he has hiw own currency

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by the truth

more cynical anti economics....all paymasters are vile exploitative people? lol...wrong. theyre the backbone of society and create ALL the wealth that pays for EVERYTHING IN SOCIETY....they also take all the risk and pressures....if anything goes wrong the buck stops with the employers...everyone risk just talks, employers entrepreneurs walk the walk

have you actually spoken to employers or are you another socialist who just assumes what employers will do? most employers want trustworthy relaible staff....older staff tend to be more stable and less likely to job hop....retraing staff endlessly is a costly exhaustingexpensive process. many would rather pay the extra few pounds anhour for the certainty and peace of mind

as for your absurd argument lets not put young healthy people into work in case they take jobs off other older people? what kind of logic is that? utter nonsense. there are places for reliable solid workers in all sectors. once a person is at work , their reliability honesty experience etc will make them more invaluable to employers and they will get more and more regular work and their wages will rise in time...other opportunities will also open up and in some cases these kids will decide to set up their own businesses too

this is the politics of optimism. this is what we need. not the politics of envy trying to squeeze every last penny from employers and risk takers....

the working tax credits are also a massive key as it the return to work schemes where job centres subsidise employers to train people for a few months....but working tax is the bridge off benefits to work and this scheme needs to be clearer and simpler to understand and better promoted......again in some cases you can get housing benefits and working tax and work. not everyone knows and understand that, theyre too scared to get off unemployment / incapacity. this is where dave cameron can really improve society. lucky for him he has a majority and autonomy free for europe to sort this mess out simply because he has hiw own currency

By paymasters I presume you mean employers, paymasters seems such a Dickensian term...
You're putting words in my mouth as I didn't suggest all employers adopt these practices but it is growing.
They do pay a lot of tax yes, if they paid more out to employees would they not have as much to be taxed...and would the employee not have a decent wage to pay tax on?

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, I'm not suggesting anyone squeeze anyone.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

By paymasters I presume you mean employers, paymasters seems such a Dickensian term...
You're putting words in my mouth as I didn't suggest all employers adopt these practices but it is growing.
They do pay a lot of tax yes, if they paid more out to employees would they not have as much to be taxed...and would the employee not have a decent wage to pay tax on?

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, I'm not suggesting anyone squeeze anyone.

youre whole rhetoric and whole narative is anti economics.....all new labour want to do is create welfare depenancy so they have millions of voters for the next generation....then overly on the working and middle classes to pay a disproportionate level of income to pay for it.....oh and raise the minimum wage over £8 thus losing millions of jobs and banning all zero hour contracts and seasonal contracts thus losing even more jobs. oh and keeping vat at 20% keeping us enslaved to the endless layers of red tape and extra burocracy of devolution and EU nonsense which needs more public servants to run , more waste more burocracy more debt..all of this red tape has also lead to the police being totally and utterly ineffective...most of the time they brush off serious crime, fraud , theft etc as a civil matter because they simply cant be bothered to tackle serious criminals and worse still they fear the endless red tape and paperowrk ...then theres also more government cover ups and nhs cover ups....ironically new labour dont even discuss trade union and workers rights , blair targetted that in the beginning....

clearly workers need rights and they do have some for unfair dismissal etc but theother new labour policies and are cheap gimmicks that look good in the headlines of a tabloid, but whenever they are studied at a deeper level they lead to ruin....that leads back to bankruptcy again, theirs is simply the road to hell. im amazed youre an orwellian yet you support the super state of new labour and the EU? which has bankrupted umpteen countries already stolen their sovereignty by stealth, illegally invaded nations ,and disempowred millions.

without wishing to engage in a you v me battle....i simply havent got a clue where youre coming from or what kind of country you want to see

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by the truth

youre whole rhetoric and whole narative is anti economics.....all new labour want to do is create welfare depenancy so they have millions of voters for the next generation....then overly on the working and middle classes to pay a disproportionate level of income to pay for it.....oh and raise the minimum wage over £8 thus losing millions of jobs and banning all zero hour contracts and seasonal contracts thus losing even more jobs. oh and keeping vat at 20% keeping us enslaved to the endless layers of red tape and extra burocracy of devolution and EU nonsense which needs more public servants to run , more waste more burocracy more debt..all of this red tape has also lead to the police being totally and utterly ineffective...most of the time they brush off serious crime, fraud , theft etc as a civil matter because they simply cant be bothered to tackle serious criminals and worse still they fear the endless red tape and paperowrk ...then theres also more government cover ups and nhs cover ups....ironically new labour dont even discuss trade union and workers rights , blair targetted that in the beginning....

clearly workers need rights and they do have some for unfair dismissal etc but theother new labour policies and are cheap gimmicks that look good in the headlines of a tabloid, but whenever they are studied at a deeper level they lead to ruin....that leads back to bankruptcy again, theirs is simply the road to hell. im amazed youre an orwellian yet you support the super state of new labour and the EU? which has bankrupted umpteen countries already stolen their sovereignty by stealth, illegally invaded nations ,and disempowred millions.

without wishing to engage in a you v me battle....i simply havent got a clue where youre coming from or what kind of country you want to see

Well you've totally lost me in your tangent, all I suggested was fair wages I wouldn't have thought that was too way out whoever's in government :/

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well you've totally lost me in your tangent, all I suggested was fair wages I wouldn't have thought that was too way out whoever's in government :/

ok do what new labour do, play dumb and go bankrupt

[empire]

I would cut child benefit down to two children, these single mothers that have 8 to 11 children, are having children with differnet fathers, there they can save alot of money, to help people find work with fair pay,

[Denver]

Originally Posted by empire

I would cut child benefit down to two children, these single mothers that have 8 to 11 children, are having children with differnet fathers, there they can save alot of money, to help people find work with fair pay,

So what if they have triplets?

[Jamesy]

They do the benefits limited to two children thing in Spain. Works quite well there actually and I would welcome a system like that in the UK.

Would certainly cut down on the percentage of mothers on benefits that pop children out so they don't have to work and can live a free life on behalf of the taxpayer. The government need to target that area of benefits more tbh.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by empire

I would cut child benefit down to two children, these single mothers that have 8 to 11 children, are having children with differnet fathers, there they can save alot of money, to help people find work with fair pay,

8 to 11 how very random, are they immaculate conceptions

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Jamesy

They do the benefits limited to two children thing in Spain. Works quite well there actually and I would welcome a system like that in the UK.

Would certainly cut down on the percentage of mothers on benefits that pop children out so they don't have to work and can live a free life on behalf of the taxpayer. The government need to target that area of benefits more tbh.

I agree. Limit the benefit, also pay it in vouchers for childrens products only so no more parents can fritter the money away on their own selfish pursuits. I would strip anyone of benefit who was fit for work. I would also prevent anyone getting a council house who could not prove they were in work for thepast 3 years. To those who argue its mean or cruel its not. ALlowing kids to be part of a breed for benefits culture is cruel. \they learn every wrong lesson in life. in most cases they see worklessness their whole lives and lack ambition. in many cases they have poor diets , poor education, poor lifestyles poor role models lose their passion for life and learning

these people need some tough love. cue the new labour fans now accusing us all of gettingall this from the daily mail , rather than every broken estate in the UK.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Timeslikethese

Great, if there were full time jobs available for everyone who wants one. There aren't.

[edit: this is TS btw, forgot I was on Mrs TS's laptop ]

An 18 year old doesn't necessarily need a full time job from the get go as most will be living at home, whats wrong with a part time job to get on the ladder?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Timeslikethese

Great, if there were full time jobs available for everyone who wants one. There aren't.

[edit: this is TS btw, forgot I was on Mrs TS's laptop ]

Why is the onus on full time positions?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

An 18 year old doesn't necessarily need a full time job from the get go as most will be living at home, whats wrong with a part time job to get on the ladder?

That was in response to The Truth saying; "I would strip anyone of benefit who was fit for work."

That's fine - if there are enough jobs available for everyone who is fit for work (which there are not).

Kizzy - focus was on full time positions being available for anyone who wants one again, in response to The Truth's statement above, because he's talking about wanting to strip benefits from anyone who is fit for work. I was pointing out that to hold that stance, it would need to be the case that there are jobs available for ALL of those people to support themselves. An adult cannot support themselves without benefits in a part time position... therefore, anything but full-time positions are a smoke screen. It's all very well for someone to say that there are "plenty of jobs available", but 16 hours of part time work is not going to cut it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That was in response to The Truth saying; "I would strip anyone of benefit who was fit for work."

That's fine - if there are enough jobs available for everyone who is fit for work (which there are not).

Kizzy - focus was on full time positions being available for anyone who wants one again, in response to The Truth's statement above, because he's talking about wanting to strip benefits from anyone who is fit for work. I was pointing out that to hold that stance, it would need to be the case that there are jobs available for ALL of those people to support themselves. An adult cannot support themselves without benefits in a part time position... therefore, anything but full-time positions are a smoke screen. It's all very well for someone to say that there are "plenty of jobs available", but 16 hours of part time work is not going to cut it.

Ah right get you now sorry

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That was in response to The Truth saying; "I would strip anyone of benefit who was fit for work."

That's fine - if there are enough jobs available for everyone who is fit for work (which there are not).

Kizzy - focus was on full time positions being available for anyone who wants one again, in response to The Truth's statement above, because he's talking about wanting to strip benefits from anyone who is fit for work. I was pointing out that to hold that stance, it would need to be the case that there are jobs available for ALL of those people to support themselves. An adult cannot support themselves without benefits in a part time position... therefore, anything but full-time positions are a smoke screen. It's all very well for someone to say that there are "plenty of jobs available", but 16 hours of part time work is not going to cut it.

Oh right this thread is about 18 to 21 year olds, it has been side tracked a bit

[the truth]

The majority are simply sick of people breeding for benefits and the political parties knows this. If Cameron can target the correct people and leave the really sick and disabled alone or better off then he may yet become a popular PM. The fact he doesn't want a 3rd term may actually strengthen him as the masses may not get so sick of him as others and may make him more effective

[empire]

the tory party only go for the vulnerable, but they never go for the likes of welfare scroungers, who milk the system, when people are out of work, trying to find a new job,or people who worked nearly all their lives and had to take early retirement, and paid their taxes and other things, but are told they are fit for work, its funny that the likes of mick philpott, and karen matthews, milked the system with so many children from differnet partners, they never got there money stopped, im sure the mp for welfare would of turned a blind eye to the both of them, I was on a apperenticeship for 2 years, and the pay was a joke, like forty pounds a week, and these cockroaches raked in more in a week than I did in five months, it makes me want to kick the tv,