[Closed] Help to work

I've seen people get less than 900 hours community service for killing a cyclist.

It's the Tories creating traps for people.

"Can't sign on every day because you can't afford a bus?" Benefits stopped.

"Miss your appt. time by 5 minutes 'cos the bus was late?" benefits stopped.

"Ill and don't turn up for involuntary voluntary work?" benefits stopped.

It's about getting the numbers down, not getting people into work.

So how would you tackle the problems of the long term unemployed? If you have been out of work for 2 years you probably need either help or a kick up the arse. The help is on offer and the stick is there for those that choose not to participate.
Getting people some experience and into the habit/practice of turning up for something, doing something and achieving something isn' a bad thing. If people can come out of it with more skills or being more employable then it should be a good thing.

The government has said the changes will help to put an end to the "one-way street in benefits".

Meanwhile...

[url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27144637 ]Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone has avoided a potential £1.2bn tax bill as a result of a secret deal with HMRC.[/url]

Ok - the ecclestone thing was 2008 but his highlights how ****ed the system is.

mikewsmith - you're bang on, but you missed the "if done compassionately"

I believe getting into a routine is a good thing to do.
Volunteering can hardly be a bad thing.
Time keeping is hardly rocket science.
From what I understand it's either daily visits or volunteering or retraining.
Retraining will be a big part.
Which bit do you disagree with?

I'm confused about doing up to 30 hours of unpaid work. If there is work to be done that's a job and whoever is doing it should be getting paid.

Similarly I'm deeply uncomfortable about internships and zero hour contracts.

My inclination is to agree with wwaswas. It's about massaging the numbers not providing "real" employment.

I'd typed a long reply and then lost it.

In summary;

1) the way that Disability Living Allowance was managed was a number crunching exercise to reduce numbers claiming, not help claimants

2) Pilots for this scheme have shown success no more than those staying on the previous system.

3) There's just more opportunity to stop benefits for 'non-compliance' with this system than the old one.

I'm all for helping people to get jobs.

I don't believe that there are enough jobs for all those unemployed to get one.

I don't think that forcing people to do community service is going to do anything more than mean that the work they're doing will no longer go to someone who was previously paid to do it.

I'm confused about doing up to 30 hours of unpaid work. If there is work to be done that's a job and whoever is doing it should be getting paid.

I don't think that forcing people to do community service is going to do anything more than mean that the work they're doing will no longer go to someone who was previously paid to do it.

Of course

The voluntary work is a bit of a red herring really. Mrs Binners works in the third sector and while 'get the unemployed to help out charities' sounds like a great idea. Daves Grand Vision for the Big Society, and all that, The reality is somewhat different

What happens is that the job centre send surly, possibly drunk, illiterate and unemployable person down to help out, under threat of getting his benefits cut. Someone in the already stretched voluntary organisation then has to try and get them to do something useful. They're usually long-term unemployed for a very good reason. They aren't much use at anything. More often that not, they spend their time trying to stop them stealing the laptops.

Do you think charities want this kind of 'help'? Really? Of course they don't. They just get them dumped on them.

So… its all headline grabbing that serves to further demonise the unemployed, and provide more ammunition for stopping benefits. Simple as that. I can see training helping out. As a lot of them are unemployable because, for whatever reason, they had a crap education. So try and tackle the real reasons. Not look for daft ineffectual (and in some cases counter-productive gimmicks, purely to keep the Daily Mail happy

Incidentally…. the people who are genuinely helpful in the charity sector are asylum seekers, who do it willingly as they're (somewhat ridiculously IMHO) legally prevented from working. When most of the time they are highly educated, highly motivated and generally pretty useful, and want to do something constructive with their time

Oh the ….

[img] [/img]

Well said binners

It's nothing new...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsarbeitsdienst

In addition to working full time the unfortunate jobseekers will have to continue to prove that they are actively seeking work in their 'spare' time.

The person is being paid, their benefit payment is given to them.

Did we do millibands headline grab last week on the vow to ban zero hour contracts ?

First good thing to come out his pie hole ..... But how to implement it and how long before they came up with an alternative/ just made everyone on a zero hour redundant....

It's hardly volunteering is you are under threat of being homeless and unable to feed yourself if you don't turn up.

Hopefully all charities will refuse to have anything to do with this.

Not forgetting that it probably breaches the Slavery and Servitude Act 2010, the Human Rights Act, and the precedent that coerced labour violates the ECHR.

I didn't see any indication of numbers - is this a big problem or not - or any analysis of why people have been out of work for 2 years as proportion of unemployed, working age population etc

Will be expensive if lots of people under this regime - increase in public spending for more DWP civil servants - or is there a wild assumption that it will pay for itself in getting people back into work.

Will it work - any evidence or analysis of success of similar schemes

Unemployment rate is about 7% - with big geographical variances - so may not be work locally or competition may be high. Also agree with the point that, if there is work to be done shouldn't we just be employing people to do it?

Ultimately, if we have a benefit system there will be some negative consequences with both people getting caught in a trap of long term unemployment making them less employable in a constrained job market or taking the p@@s because the don't want to work.

In my view, it's fair enough to take (positive) measures to address both these - but not at the expense of the point of why the welfare system exists. I suspect that this has less to do with getting long term back to work and more to do with demonising the unemployed. Because, by bearing down on benefits and claimants it makes people prepared to work for less money (and linked to liberalisation of labour laws)in less secure environments and less likely to risk any action that potentially risks unemployment (eg action for better conditions/pay). All gravy if you own or invest in business, not so hot if you are an employee.

There's probably loads of flaws in my thoughts but how about.....
Dole plus. You help fill pot holes or paint hospitals and you get more than the dole money.
If you don't want to do it fine, just reward people who want to do a little bit more.
Sitting at home watching daytime telly is enough to sap the spirit out of anyone.

... and the people whose job it is to fill potholes or paint hospitals lose jobs and sign on. If this work needs doing - pay people to do it.

Old dog, there may be people to do those jobs but our roads are still full of holes and hospitals in disrepair.
Seems like they could do with some extra hands.

There seems to be this idea that unemployment is the fault of the unemployed. The simple fact is there are not enough jobs to go around. I will admit that there is a core (probably less than 10%) of unemployed people who would probably refuse to work in any circumstances, but many of these are arguably a product of an education system way too focused on pushing everyone into academia.
It is too easy an option to blame the unemployed for unemployment. Most unemployed people are the victims of the "market forces" that our economy is based on. The Tories will never dream of policies which mitigate against the negative impacts of market forces on the economy, that would be rampant Stalinism apparently...
Over the past few years, very few jobs have been [i][b]created[/b][/i], most people getting a new job were probably getting it because another person lost their job.

spent 6 months unemployed last year

and things really are a joke

the pressure to get you off the books is enormous, the staff were desperate to sanction you, so that that the government could reduse the claimant count
ultimately you are left even more demoralised and theres no effort to help you get an actual career and reducing the opportunity for stable long term work

met some incredibly determined people at courses and some who were obviously trying to play the system

this scheme will help neither

those that want to get on will give up a few weeks of free labour while those that dont will just cause hassle

zippykona ... but is you use cheap unemployed labour to do these jobs why pay full price for decorators to do the work at all? Who is to say how much work is to be done at full price by properly employed workers and how much by cheaper unemployed?

Basically you would end up with a strong downward pressure on wages in those trades that the scheme operated for.

And fundamentally, how would you feel if you lost your job because your employer could get someone to do the work for free?

Compelled volunteering won't help. http://keepvolunteeringvoluntary.net/

Why don't the government actually pay them properly to do a real job instead? Or is that too much like big state?

Sooner people realise that there is a section of society that are beyond help the better. let them have their dole money.

The dole is not an attractive proposition to anyone but wasters, most people do want to work if they can.

Signing on daily is just daft, and counterproductive to boot- job centres are already overstretched, they don't need 14 times more visits from the long-term unemployed! How about, sign on once a fortnight and make the sign-on appointment more useful rather than the boxticking and benefit-sanctioning exercise it is now.

The whole "volunteering" thing has been tried before, and lo and behold people ended up "volunteering" to do work that normally would have been a paid role. Volunteering gets right on my tits because when I was out of work, I did some and was told by my job centre person that because I was "unavailable for work" while volunteering, my benefits could be docked! Insane. But when you're volunteering for someone they want you to, that's all good, even though that'll inevitably make it harder to focus on finding real work.

Then there's the Cait Reilly scenario- someone is already volunteering, but gets ordered to stop doing that, in order to go and do some less useful voluneering for some company that's on the official Approved Cheap Labour List.

And o'course it'll be a matter of minutes before they stop someone's benefits because they didn't attend an appointment they'd never been told about, or they couldn't afford to get to, or that was 500 miles away, or they were too ill to attend, or were at a job interview (*) or similiar. And there'll be an appeals process but even if it works, in the meantime you get to live on air for a month.

(* I got this one- my job centre told me I should reschedule a job interview because it was more important that I sign on)
Let's blow them up. Only rational response.

Thats communism Molls! Have you not seen the tractor production figures comrade?

As far as employment goes,haven't about [url= http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/14/job-market-instability-self-employed-tuc ]50% of the 'jobs' created[/url], been people registered as self-employed? So not unemployed. Apparently Job Centre Staff are putting heavy pressure on the unemployed to do this. Then they're off the books, and instead of claiming jobseekers, they get their money in working tax credits instead. But they're still unemployed. As they haven't actually got a job

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21260331 ]very dodgy goings on indeed[/url]

Put this together with the millions who are 'underemployed' - working in insecure part-time and zero hours contracts, and the unemployment figures, and any pretence at a real economic recovery are all pretty laughable. Is it really a 'job' when there are no guaranteed hours, no holiday or sick pay, no employers NI contributions? Seriously?

This latest ruse is just more of the same. Get people off the books, by any means possible, to cover up for the fact that there isn't an economic recovery at all. Just some people selling houses. And if the plebs and proles are driven to food banks, and desperation, well… who ****ing cares? As long as they don't show up in any statistics eh?

Pretty sure this will just push people to more crime. If you can't afford to eat, you're better off in Jail than starving on the street.

If the system ain't broke why fix it....oh right

Don't understand the link between Bernie Ecclestone and people too lazy to work? You saying we should tax the rich more to pay for the lazy people?

LHS - Member
If the system ain't broke why fix it....oh right

Don't understand the link between Bernie Ecclestone and people too lazy to work? You saying we should tax the rich more to pay for the lazy people?

Put it this way, if I have no job, and no benefits, how else am I going to live except unlawfully?

Who said they were Lazy?

Again I'm being stupid (nothing new).
What's difficult in
1. Going to the jobcenter
2. Volunteering. What's wrong with making food for pensioners?
3. Training. This can only be a good thing.
Where does it mention stopping money as long as they do as requested? Maybe some people (not all) expect something for nothing and this could be a kick up their arse.

600,000 jobs available from what I heard on Radio 4 this morning.

Who said they were Lazy?

Generally I find its people too lazy, or stupid, to form their own opinion, based on anything like actual evidence. Or look into anything more deeply than the misinformation spoon-fed to them by the mouthpiece of the vested interests they represent. Read it in a Mail editorial? Well its probably true then. They're all bone idle, sponging off 'hard-worng families'

It suits the government to demonise the unemployed (and the sick and disabled) to justify stopping their benefits, while they dismantle the welfare state.

As someone who was unemployed after my business folded a few years ago, I'd say you should try it yourself before you label the unemployed as all lazy, ****less and work shy. Its complete cobblers. You can apply for job after job after job, and not even receive a single reply! Its utterly demoralising. And then, on top of this general feeling of hopelessness, you have idiots like LHS spouting their right-wing crap that its because 'they're lazy'. Because thats what they read somewhere, without questioning it! It boils my piss!!!

[i]What's wrong with making food for pensioners[/i]

1) who pays for the actual food?

2) who pays for the additional infrastructure required to allow 200,000 extra people to turn food into pensioner meals?

3) which pensioners aren't currently having food made for them currently?

No one said everyone is lazy. There are a lot of genuine reasons why people can't work.

There are also a lot of genuine work-shy dodgers who really need to be weeded out.

No one said everyone is lazy.

Yes you did. Are you getting confused? Is this all a bit complicated?

Anyway…. You are Iain Duncan Smith and I claim my food parcel 😀

LHS - Member
There are also a lot of genuine work-shy dodgers who really need to be weeded out.

Doesn't have to be food. Pensioners have to eat so I'm sure they would supply food.
Helping in animal rescue centers.
Driving disabled children in a minibus.
Help in charity shop.
Collect rubbish.
Clean statues.
Whatever you can think of.
Be as pedantic as you want wwaswas.
Helping people or having pride in your environment is a good thing.

I like this Wikipedia entry;

[img] [/img]

600,000 available jobs. They should be made to take a job, even if it isn't the ideal job that they want. There are a lot of people in jobs that aren't there ideal, why should some be treated different than others.

Are you getting confused? Is this all a bit complicated?

Demonstration of some great intellectual debating skills! 🙄

iolo - Member
Doesn't have to be food. Pensioners have to eat so I'm sure they would supply food.
Helping in animal rescue centers.
Driving disabled children in a minibus.
Help in charity shop.
Collect rubbish.
Clean statues.
Whatever you can think of.
Be as pedantic as you want wwaswas.
Helping people or having pride in your environment is a good thing.

Why should these people(pensioners and old folks etc) have to deal with the ****less in society,?

Plus that's quite an infrastructure you'd need to set up to supervise all these people. That isn't free.

LHS - Member
600,000 available jobs. They should be made to take a job, even if it isn't the ideal job that they want.

Are you saying that all out of work people are useless? Bit of a gross generalisation.

@sesomeah77
If you don't get it you never will.
Ah well.

LHS - Member
Are you saying that all out of work people are useless? Bit of a gross generalisation.

If anyone can propose some way to target and penalise the genuinely lazy and workshy, without collateral damage, I'm all for it. But none of the proposals seem to even attempt that.

trail_rat - Member

Did we do millibands headline grab last week on the vow to ban zero hour contracts ?

First good thing to come out his pie hole ....

Thing is though, not everyone on a zero hours contract is unhappy. So that's a bit tricky.

Its not a case of "I wanted to be an astronaut, and there aren't any vacancies at the moment"

What if the job available was a minimum wage, zero hours contract? Because if you looked at the 600, 000 jobs apparently available, I reckon about 90% of them will be.

Would you take it then? So you give up your benefits, sign off, for no guaranteed working hours, and after working a full week, you could be considerably worse off than when you were on benefits. How about then?

Honest to god! You hard-of-thinking right wingers need to start asking a few questions about the reality of the situation, rather than just spouting made-up statistics, and biased editorial, government fed claptrap 🙄

[i]Doesn't have to be food. Pensioners have to eat so I'm sure they would supply food.
Helping in animal rescue centers.
Driving disabled children in a minibus.
Help in charity shop.
Collect rubbish.
Clean statues.
Whatever you can think of.
Be as pedantic as you want wwaswas.[/i]

But it is all in the detail;

So pensioners should let complete strangers in their house to cook food for them? Or should we create an infrastructure (and who pays for that) to run the whole thing?

We already pay people to collect rubbish - should they all be made redundant?

[i]Driving disabled children in a minibus.[/i] really? In who's minibus and with what training - does everyone who's been unemployed for 2 years now have a psv licence and a CRB check?

It's easy to say 'just get them to do stuff' but it's about implementing it and protecting those being 'helped'.

And if the stuff being done is important to our society why aren't we paying people properly to do it.

If it's irrelevant 'make work' then don't dress it up as anything but that.

iolo - Member
@sesomeah77
If you don't get it you never will.
Ah well.

Rather than trying to fix broken people. I'd spend my time and resourse on the next generation and figure out why people get themselves into the situation of being completely lost to the system and try fixing that. you know prevention rather than this cure nonsense we hear.

Honest to god! You hard-of-thinking right wingers need to start asking a few questions about the reality of the situation, rather than just spouting made-up statistics, and biased editorial, government fed claptrap

Always a lot of reasons and excuses why something can't be done, but no real desire for why things can be done. The main problem here really.

The government seem very keen on attacking the unemployed. They seem considerably more relaxed about the fact that a large percentage of the 'jobs' created, that they now want to force the unemployed to take, do not pay a wage that is possible to live on

If they were addressing that side of the equation too, then I'd be considerably less cynical about their intentions. But so far they have shown absolutely zero willingness to even engage with the issue. I doubt the Daily Mail will be running any crusading campaigns for a living wage any time soon either

600,000 jobs - so what? There are always jobs on the market and always people looking for them. For this stat to have any meaning you need to look at trend of vacancies versus workforce versus unemployment over time as a minimum ie what is normal/healthy/unhealthy churn. And you have to do this by geography. And no I'm not going to do this for you.

What can be done - improve competiveness of UK through up-skilling (not downward pressure on wages by hammering unemployed - see my post above for how this works- or relaxing employment regulation) We will never compete internationally on cheap labour. Infrastructure investment to improve competitiveness and to provide skilled work and training opportunities in the short/medium-run. Introduce living wage on back of up-skilled economy - more money into pockets of workers who will buy stuff so increase consumption and economic growth.

I reckon if all the food banks offer to give all the long term unemployed unpaid work half the cabinets heads would explode trying to cope.

They could be put to work loading the disabled and foreigners into the ovens.

It's a bad policy solution to an intractible problem that's the byproduct of us living in a relatively civilized society. Better to focus resources on the next generation.

Perhaps we could build big houses where the unemployed would be given accommodation as well as food. They just have to work all day in these big houses all day for their food and board.

But what would we call them?

[i]But what would we call them? [/i]

"Houses for the Poor"

"Houses for Work"

Both feel close but not quite right.

Always a lot of reasons and excuses why something can't be done, but no real desire for why things can be done. The main problem here really.

Yes the main problem is people with their inconvenient facts and evidence that get in the way of unthinking heartless right-wing dogma.

The whole not letting people volunteer as they are not then available for work has always seemed crazy to me. Perhaps Job Seekers Allowance should be treated as a wage, so if you get £72 that represents 9 hours volunteering somewhere that you can do without penalty. But that would be far too sensible...

The whole not letting people volunteer as they are not then available for work has always seemed crazy to me. Perhaps Job Seekers Allowance should be treated as a wage, so if you get £72 that represents 9 hours volunteering somewhere that you can do without penalty. But that would be far too sensible...

This makes sense, IMO benefits should be a last resort for a limited time to help you get back on your feet. You should not be able to make a living/life from it. No reason why people cant work a few hours for the money they get, it would still leave them time to search for jobs and attend interviews.

according the link, it is possible to volunteer and get JSA as long as you tell DWP and can attend interviews/pack it in at short notice if you are offered a job. I think the problem has been where people doing voluntary work have been required to stop to do unpaid "training" type jobs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/volunteering-while-getting-benefits-leaflet

600,000 jobs available from what I heard on Radio 4 this morning.

Are these the ones on the Job Centre employment portal? If they are then this has been shown to be a scam in the past.

If 150000 of these jobs require a degree how is this going to help the average job-seeker who doesn't have this piece of paper? And we're down to 450000 jobs that real out of work people can do. How many are unemployed, the real number not those claiming benefits but those eligible for benefits?

Until our government gets busy on making real jobs available all of this is window dressing and garnish.

Maybe if we did something radical like, for example, collected all the tax that people like Mr Ecclestone or companies like Vodafone owe on their earnings in this country there would be less need to demonise the poor and unfortunate of our society. And there would be less of a hole (considerable smaller hole) in our public finances. To claim that companies will **** off out of it if we tax them proportionately is a crock as someone somewhere would be happy to work at the going rate to make money.

Let them go we don't need no subsidy junky multi billion companies they are a drain on our society. You want to profit in the UK pay your bloody taxes otherwise you are a succubus.

Maybe if we did something radical like, for example, collected all the tax that people like Mr Ecclestone or companies like Vodafone owe on their earnings in this country

The two are mutually exclusive problems. Collecting more tax shouldn't mean that we should tolerate a failing benefits system.

shouldn't mean that we should tolerate a failing benefits system.

Jesus wept. I was right. You really are Iain Duncan Smith, aren't you. Nice haircut! 😀

Yes its dysfunctional. But Its the multinational companies that are the real 'benefits scroungers' here. We're effectively subsidising them to not pay a living wage. They can get away with paying their staff a pittance, while making billions in profit, because the state then makes up the difference.

The massive, ever increasing housing benefit bill is sky rocketing not because of the unemployed, but because of the working poor. The people on minimum wage. But does the government do anything, even to suggest changing this. Do they ****! They're busy trying to drive down wage costs and conditions yet further, while continuing pouring billions into tax credits and housing benefit to subsidise these companies subsistence-level wage rates

So when these same companies end up paying no tax, then its insult too injury. So the 2 are entirely linked

Unless you really are wedded to the blind right-wing dogma that refuses to countenance such things. Any more soundbites you'd like to chip in with? Clearly if you say them often enough, people believe them 🙄

That's one [s]narrow-minded[/s] way to look at it.

It's a culture thing in the UK unfortunately. People become transfixed that they are owed something for doing nothing and it is all too easy to blame it on companies rather than the individual themselves. The knee-jerk rhetoric of tax-dodging corporations is a bit daily mail isn't it?

Binners for PM!

Edited to say that there's been some nasty stuff spouted here. 😐

Nick Clegg.

Has anyone been watching the TV programme 'How to get a Council house' in Tower Hamlets?

Do any of you honestly believe that it's easy for those unfortunate people to secure employment?

People become transfixed that they are owed something for doing nothing and it is all too easy to blame it on companies rather than the individual themselves.

You're slipping! You're meant to use the words 'culture of entitlement'. The culture of entitlement where those bloody spongers think £71 a week is a god-given right! But don't mention the bankers who are demanding bonuses of 200% of salary, as thats totally different, and isn't a 'culture of entitlement' in the slightest. As isn't an MP's right to flip their homes, and claim their mortgages on expenses. Nothing entitle-ish about that!

You just keep repeating your mantra. As grum pointed out above… don't be letting yourself be swayed by anything as inconvenient as those pesky 'facts'. Who needs them when you're an evangelist for a capitalist utopia, where the entrepreneurial of spirit are finally free from the shackles of providing a welfare system, and can fulfil they're true potential

LHS - Member

It's a culture thing in the UK unfortunately. People become transfixed that they are owed something for doing nothing and it is all too easy to blame it on companies

Perhaps some; but I'd say far more people are obsessed with the idea that the unemployed are all ****less workshy wasters. I got a taste of that after I was made redundant, almost from day 1 people were sniffy that I wasn't working. A weird mix of jealousy and pig igorance imo.

Those pesky facts. If you do something illegal then you go to court for it and lose your job. Bankers bonuses and corporation tax is just another example of knee-jerk headline grabbing Daily Mail esk reactions. Why is it necessary to encourage mediocrity at one end of the spectrum to offset failings in the system at the other end.

Bankers bonuses and corporation tax is just another example of knee-jerk headline grabbing Daily Mail esk reactions.

Not just the Daily Mail, they get headlines in most papers.

I think the whole 'culture of entitlement' thing is a smokescreen to hide the real swindling going on at the top of the pile. Most unemployed people don't want to be in that position.

So much is made of the 'won't work' types, but I'd guess that those people are such a tiny minority of people on benefits that, as a society, we may as well pay them their princely £71 per week. It's got to be better than the social cost of forcing them into poverty and crime.

The problem is that there's no real way of opting out of the system should one choose to. In an ideal world, if you didn't want to 'work' you could go and build yourself a shack in the woods and live off the land. Except all the land is privately owned so that wouldn't work. And anyway, the bone-idle wasters would be too ****less and LAZY to build a shack anyway eh LHS 😉

I think society should support those who don't want to play the game as there isn't any alternative.

Encouraging mediocrity? Hmmmmmmm. If only those bankers had been mediocre. The Barclays lot demanding their 200% bonuses were the architects of a 32% drop in profits. Thats a long way from mediocrity. isn't it?

Perhaps Michael Gove could propose the same system for his performance related pay for teachers. So if a new headmaster takes over a school. After his first year, the number of GCSE passes has dropped by 32%. What response would he get if he threatened to have a hissy fit, and demand an absolutely massive pay rise for his far-from-mediocre performance?

The problem people have with boardroom and bankers pay is that it has no link with performance or results. Therefore the 'culture of entitlement' is entirely applicable. They all sit on each others renumeration committees and wave through each others obscene pay rises and bonuses, fully supported by a government that has for 4 years demanded 'wage restraint' (reality: pay cuts!) for everyone else, and continues to persecute the poor, and make sure that they carry the burden of a financial crisis which was caused by…. who? I forget. Oh yeah…. the same bankers now demanding yet further increases in their thoroughly undeserved bonuses

You couldn't make it up! You certainly couldn't defend it with a straight face, unless…..

[img] [/img]

😆

Bully.

The problem people have with boardroom and bankers pay is that it has no link with performance or results.

Evidence. (apart from daily mail esk knee jerking)

How do you know that a boardroom member of staff has not been a superior performer and should be renumerated according to market conditions.

If someone sells £100m of sales but only gets paid £100k a year, why are they not entitled to a £200k bonus? That's only 0.2% of there total sales?

Really? Bless.

[img] [/img]

🙄

Northwind - Member
Perhaps some; but I'd say far more people are obsessed with the idea that the unemployed are all ****less workshy wasters.

I'm well with the program of a living wage and scrapping big business subsidies, government doing it's job properly by creating well paid jobs that people want to do etc.

[img] [/img]

That ok for you buttercup?

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18035125 ]Pay packages designed to incentivise FTSE 100 chief executives had little effect on company performance, it found.[/url]