Stuart Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 There was an expression in Yorkshire when I were a lad, often used by my Dad when my Mum was on a spending spree. 'Gi oe'r lass, tha'll 'ave us in t'workhouse' he used to say. Earlier in his lifetime, if you couldn't support yourself, you got a bunk in the workhouse and you got fed. Nowt else. You didn't have kids if you couldn't afford to support 'em. End of. That's where the fabulous work ethic of those generations came from. To be out of work was shameful. Those values certainly rubbed off on me and, in turn, I have instilled 'em into my lads. Not suggesting that's what we should go back to, but it's far, far too much the other way now. (SootySport I'm not talking about your son but about those who manipulate the system to avoid work). A country can only sustain such social expenses if it can generate the income to fund them whilst remaining globally competitive. And the UK can't. It won't happen in my lifetime, but it will all end in tears - and we will be doing laundry for the Chinese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meakin Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Sooty sport I know what you are talking about I was between jobs literally one contract finished and another started 6 weeks later. All written up legally binding the lot, but the unemployment office still had me in for interviews to apply for jobs and gave me loads of hassle. The reason, because I was honest and told them. I had another stint where i was writing to employees on several agencies and It seems that if you are honest and trying to actually look for work they give you more hassle. An X friend of mine was on the dole for many years and he learnt how to answer the questions perfectly to not get hassle or actually get a job. Hence why he ended up an X friend. For people that are actually unemployed and trying to seek work I think we should give as much support as possible. The problem is that there are a lot of people that are milking the system for every penny they can get and have no intention of getting out of it. My suggestion of capping benefits was to try and stop the freeloaders whilst supporting the genuine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 18, 2014 Author Share Posted April 18, 2014 My parents both worked (when I was but a lad). This was not up North but in London. My father got up at 0500 and left home at 0530. He got the 653 trolley bus from Upper Clapton (we lived in the council flats of Northwold Road) to City Road to go to work at Harrella a coat manufacturer (from Halifax). He would call in to the cafe and meet his mates and have a cupper and a fag the start work at 0700. At 17:30 he'd clock out and go to Euston to work in his brothers waistcoat factory getting home about 2300. I then did the same and in fact, when I started our first computer company would leave home at 0400 to get to Glasgow for 0830 two or three times a week. Leave at 1730 but not get in until 22:30. Not surprisingly our kids also work long hours. My lads not an early starter but will work from home most nights and often not go to bed until 0200 or later. When I left ADP (the company I sold the first business to) I thought I'd sign on more because I could than needing the money. Joke. I was sent from pillar to post, only to be told at the 6th window that my application was out of time as it was 6 weeks and a day and the claim had to be made within 6 weeks. They suggested the claim be put to the panel for a decision. OK, no problem. About 3 months later I got a letter informing me the panel had rejected my claim. I sent it back saying, sorry but the claimant had died of starvation due to having no money. In fact I should have been told to wait 6 weeks and claim again where it would have been OK. Anyway, agree with above, it's got way out of hand and needs to be brought back under control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistonbroke Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Are there no workhouses these days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 18, 2014 Author Share Posted April 18, 2014 Yes, but they call them "call centres" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SootySport Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 The good news is, unemployment is down if you believe the government figures this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Dastardly Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Most of this discussion seems to center around the whole system i.e. should benefits get cut? I think it's less clear cut and harder to sort out. It's the distribution which is all wrong so some feckless scroungers get a fortune, while other more deserving cases do not get enough. It would be very difficult for a system to distinguish between two different unemployed people though, or two back injuries etc. I would find it hard to support any able, non working household getting more than minimum wage equivalent though. Or more than 1 or 2 child support, or big houses. Glad I'm not the one charged with sorting it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 Doug, agree with you but it need not be difficult. For example why do we have job seekers allowance and disability benefit. The end result is the same, the person can't work so needs assistance. We do need to distinguish between someone who has a bad back and a long term and permanent disability so that assistance can be given for specially adapted homes and/or wheelchairs etc. If someone is expected to live on a low wage (minimum or living) without direct benefit then why should people not working get paid far more. It just doesn't make sense. One way around this is to have a higher free pay threshold and/or a negative tax system for the next band so that government can support low paid workers. However you're so right about those that deserve more don't always get it. I had a friend who was Down Syndrome. The local council paid for a taxi to take him and fetch him from the centre he went to 3 times a week. The government increased carers allowance, (he was looked after by his ageing mother herself a widow of many years. John was in his 50s and Dorothy was in her 80s.) so the council withdrew the free taxi service and she ended up worse off. This was immoral and it's not how I would have wanted my tax money spent. Just for the record John died in 2005 and Dorothy passed away last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Dastardly Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I think that's it in a nutshell really. I would think most taxpayers would happily support a case like that to the hilt while removing support from new immigrants families and long term non-contributors who've made the choice not to. The problem is most of these people are probably un-employable now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 Doug, fine, you're correct that most are unemployable. I knew a chap in the pub opposite our then offices. He had been working as a middle manager at HSBC HQ (in Sheffield). Every night he was at the bar and we got talking. Once he realised I was an employer he nagged me stupid to give him a letter refusing me employment following a job interview. He needed these to stay on the dole in order to show he was actively seeking employment. He was out of work following a life threatening illness and operation and quite liked spending all day in the pub so never went back to his job, which was open to him. How about you get the dole (job seekers allowance) for 6 months and then get offered a job on the Job Centres books and refusal loses the benefit. JSA would not be available for, say 3 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Dastardly Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I know that good mechanics are in shortage in many areas. I've been told by more than one company that they have given up looking as they get applications from anyone and everyone just to prove they are 'actively' looking for a job. I mean if hairdressers are applying for jobs as mechanics who's it helping? Everyone knows they can't do the job, don't want it, and won't get it. And in case anyone thinks I'm disrespecting hairdressers it would be true the other way round too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 Doug, I was thinking more along the non-skilled jobs that are placed in the job centres. Having said that one of the best mechanics I employed was from the job centre but that was 50 years ago! Do skilled job vacancies get registered at job centres these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SootySport Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 No they don't. Skilled jobs are usually dealt by specialised agencies and most commonly on-line. The offerings at the Job Centre are the non skilled & part time vacancies, not much to choose from. You can visit a Job Centre and use the internet to seek out jobs, so far they don't charge you anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.