Tough Plans for Young Jobless

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by derekgas

Whos pocket would the 'free' labour be lining? Bet yer life it wont be the taxpayer!

Do you propose we leave it how it is? I don't think people living off the state is benefiting the taxpayer.

[emamum]

i think this is a good idea.. it gets them into some kind of work, gives them something to put on thiers cv's and gives them some kind of experience...

[garinda]

To me these measures aren't nearly tough enough, and are just the sort of namby-pamby measures I've come to expect from New Labour...whoops, the New Conservatives.

These schemes were tried before in the eighties under various names, Y.O.P.s being one of them.

All that happened was that unscrupulous employers took advantage of cheap subsidised labour, then got rid of them after twelve months, only to take on the next one.

I think the public would find any party more appealing if they were really intent on being tough over the abuse of the benefits system.

Sadly this doesn't seem the case here.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I agree with you these proposals should not be putting people out of jobs that would be completely counter productive. I don't for a second imagine that the Conservatives would be so stupid as to let this happen. Not only do I expect guidelines/restrictions to prevent this, but I also think there is SO MUCH MORE to be done in local areas that currently doesn't because of a lack of funds to employ more people.

...but you don't have any details about what actual work the people on these schemes will be doing, so how do you know whose jobs might be at risk, when in competition with this unpaid work force?

[derekgas]

As long as we have cheap labour in immigrants, the government/employers will take the mickey, and people will be on benefits, I propose what I always have, close the immigration loopholes and give people a chance to work for a decent wage, most everything else has been tried, oh, except my other proposal, bring back some kind of national service.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Why make such a pointless post? I was hoping you'd point out the ones you were thinking of so I could comment, be that defend the proposals or agree with you.

if ya read my post,i said there was good mileage in the idea, so therefore ya have no need to defend the proposals, as for pointing out, i have no intention if ya can't see them, aint getting into any discussion with you, just stating me view.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

To me these measures aren't nearly tough enough, and are just the sort of namby-pamby measures I've come to expect from New Labour...whoops, the New Conservatives.

These schemes were tried before in the eighties under various names, Y.O.P.s being one of them.

All that happened was that unscrupulous employers took advantage of cheap subsidised labour, then got rid of them after twelve months, only to take on the next one.

I think the public would find any party more appealing if they were really intent on being tough over the abuse of the benefits system.

Sadly this doesn't seem the case here.

The company gets paid when the person has been in a job for a year. The companies would be providing training and the 'employees' would be doing community work as well. It's not a case of the tax payer subsidising a sweatshop so that private companies can wreak the benifits of free labour.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by cashman

if ya read my post,i said there was good mileage in the idea, so therefore ya have no need to defend the proposals, as for pointing out, i have no intention if ya can't see them, aint getting into any discussion with you, just stating me view.

I was only trying to help you out but it seems you don't want to suggest who the wrong people would be so I can't respond. If you don't know who the wrong people would be, thats fine, but by saying it I thought you'd have an idea. It just sounds like you're trying to be difficult.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

The company gets paid when the person has been in a job for a year. The companies would be providing training and the 'employees' would be doing community work as well. It's not a case of the tax payer subsidising a sweatshop so that private companies can wreak the benifits of free labour.

....and therefore unscrupulous employers can take advantage of a subsidised workforce, thus taking away 'real' jobs that people could do to support themselves and their families, and which paid a fair wage.

It's all been tried before.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

....and therefore unscrupulous employers can take advantage of a subsidised workforce, thus taking away 'real' jobs that people could do to support themselves and their families, and which paid a fair wage.

It's all been tried before.

I don't really see what your alternative is, should we not train people?

At the end of the day we both agree that this should not force people out of jobs or it would be a stupid proposal. You need legitimate reason to sack somebody for a start, and the training is going to be run by independent groups for training and guidence, not a job stealing situation at all.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I don't really see what your alternative is, should we not train people?

As I said earlier retraining is fine, but the creation of an unpaid workforce, in competition with people who are currently employed, is counterproductive.

I'm afraid this (not) new proposal hasn't made me want to vote for the Conservatives, though a party who actually were tough on this, or other issues, might.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

As I said earlier retraining is fine, but the creation of an unpaid workforce, in competition with people who are currently employed, is counterproductive.

I'm afraid this (not) new proposal hasn't made me want to vote for the Conservatives, though a party who actually were tough on this, or other issues, might.

As has been said It isn't going to create an unpaid workforce competing with other people. Therefore I hope you will support the proposals.

[Pendle Red]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Under new Conservative proposals people aged between 18-21 who are capable of working will be placed on an intensive programme of work-related activity provided by a specialist employer. The aim being to get them into work. Refusal to attend would mean a removal of benefits.

If still jobless after a year they would be moved to a full-time 12 month community work programme. The idea being that ‘whilst young people may not always get the job they want immediately, they are better off in a job and looking to move on than languishing outside of the work place.’

I think its a great idea. There is no reason why hard working tax payers should have to support those who cannot be bothered. Doing it whilst young is the best time as it doesn’t give them chance to fall into the benefits cycle.

More details will be released in a speech tomorrow.

What a complete load of Cobblers!

Nothing new just a rehash of what has already been tried and failed

What fantastic sum of money will be offered by these so called Specialist Employers?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

As has been said It isn't going to create an unpaid workforce competing with other people. Therefore I hope you will support the proposals.

...but as you don't seem able to give details as to what these people on the schemes will actually be doing, you don't know whose, or how many, people's jobs they will put at risk.

Very poorly thought out idea.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Pendle Red

Nothing new just a rehash of what has already been tried and failed.

Perhaps they haven't yet reached the eighties on his politics course.