INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Government's workfare scheme

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#21 Post by Dave B » May 24th, 2012, 11:20 am

Latest post of the previous page:

I have heard the expression, "less-abled," before now.

I think "handicapped" is accurate and explicit as well, Nick. You cannot really compensate for a disability in the sense as you used it. If your legs do not work you have to overcome that hurdle (handicap) by strengthening other parts of the anatomy and finding activities that you can achieve. The legs might be "disabled" but the whole person is not!

But once has to accede to the wishes of those described if they wish certain words to be used and not others - even when no insult is meant.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#22 Post by Dave B » May 24th, 2012, 11:28 am

Athena wrote:I understand the objection from disabled people to the word 'handicap' comes from the belief that it refers to the 'cap in hand' used by beggars, though this source disagrees http://www.snopes.com/language/offense/handicap.asp.

Whatever the truth, the word is definitely not on the pc list nowadays.
I have heard that as well. I have seen an etymology that says "handicapped" is to "put at a disadvantage" that comes from the 19thC. But there it is the sense that the horse carrying the lightest jockey has to be "handicapped" with weights. And so on for golf etc.

Is this another case where someone came to a wrong conclusion and everyone else merely followed on without checking? We have probably lost the polite use of many words because of artificial connotations and mistaken etymology.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#23 Post by Fia » May 24th, 2012, 2:05 pm

As disabled folk don't want to use the word handicapped, for whatever reason, that's fine by me :)

It's not a
new fashion
, Nick, it's about treating all folk with respect imho...

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#24 Post by Nick » May 24th, 2012, 2:49 pm

True enough, Fia. I'm just being a grumpy old git. :kiss:


A friend of mine did a very funny stand-up routine at an open mic evening. About how she "caught bi-polar. It used to be called manic depression. Until posh people started getting it." :D

(And she is a sufferer herself, so no outrage, please.... :D )

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#25 Post by Dave B » May 24th, 2012, 2:52 pm

Fia wrote:As disabled folk don't want to use the word handicapped, for whatever reason, that's fine by me :)

It's not a
new fashion
, Nick, it's about treating all folk with respect imho...
That is the controlling factor, describe them as they wish to be described, I agree. Just so long as they forgive those of us whose memory is still stuck in the old groove when a new one is cut!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#26 Post by Alan H » June 4th, 2012, 11:44 pm

Unemployed bussed in to steward river pageant
A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant.

Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth as part of the government's Work Programme.

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, said they had to camp under London Bridge the night before the pageant. They told the Guardian they had to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday.
Close Protection UK confirmed that it was using up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices, who were paid £2.80 an hour, for the three-day event in London. A spokesman said the unpaid work was a trial for paid roles at the Olympics, which it had also won a contract to staff. Unpaid staff were expected to work two days out of the three-day holiday.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#27 Post by Dave B » June 5th, 2012, 9:40 am

Whilst I am not completely against the idea that the unemployed should "earn" their benefits wherever possible, with something extra if they are doing a "proper job", this is NOT the way to do it. It's more like the impressed labour of olden times than anything that is constructive and leaves those involved with experience that might benefit them in the future. Not providing them with adequate facilities is a bloody insult to society.

I have not read the article yet but did Close Protection pay all of their wages or were they still being paid by the dole I wonder. Not that it makes much difference, the tax payer foots the bill either way.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#28 Post by Fia » June 5th, 2012, 10:30 am

I'm gobsmacked.
Both stewards said they were originally told they would be paid. But when they got to the coach on Saturday night, they said, they were told that the work would be unpaid and that if they did not accept it they would not be considered for well-paid work at the Olympics.
Jam tomorrow if they accept appalling treatment and conditions now.. rings a bell somewhere...

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#29 Post by Alan H » June 5th, 2012, 10:31 am

It does seem dangerously close to a return to Victorian workhouses.

It's the Government being 'business friendly'... :D
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#30 Post by Dave B » June 5th, 2012, 11:15 am

Alan H wrote: It's the Government being 'business friendly'... :D
Arse lickers.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#31 Post by Alan H » June 5th, 2012, 1:35 pm

The story has now reached the BBC after John Prescott said he would ask the Home Secretary to investigate.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#32 Post by Dave B » June 5th, 2012, 1:45 pm

Close Protection have apologised (via the BBC at least) claiming that the "stewards" arrived earlier than expected - feeble. Did they expect them to start off in the wee small hours to arrive early on the actual day?

Sounds like a typical government/industry logistical cock-up to me.

I guess it is up to the government to ex[lain about the pay rates and threats - strange to find myself on John Prestcott's side on this - first time I think!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#33 Post by Alan C. » June 5th, 2012, 5:25 pm

A friend of mines (Rosa for those that have met her) daughter got a job in Nottingham with the recently de-funded and privatised Remploy, after working for eight weeks and not receiving any wages, the job center kindly let her pack it in without threat to her job seekers allowance.

Her mum and dad had to send her cash every week she was with Remploy.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#34 Post by Alan H » June 5th, 2012, 5:35 pm

Is it just me, or is there something about the phrase 'getting a job' that has the expectation of some form of remuneration for doing that job? Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#35 Post by Dave B » June 5th, 2012, 7:31 pm

Not workfare but perhaps allied to this the government are going to increase the number of prisoners allowed to work outside the prison for "pocket money". Whilst the intention to get these people used to work and all it entails is a good one there still seems the problem of if there is work available then how about people who need to earn a wage having it.

The other side of that problem is there are a lot of people who are on the dole who have no intention to work if they can avoid it - which is why the hard line is being taken by the government in the first place. My experience in having to attend an interview at the local DPW offices and listening to the conversations in the waiting room made me quite sick and angry. Perhaps that is why I am for a bit of pressure on these people - so long as there is at least the minimum wage in the deal.

The trouble is my own experience was that the interviewers found it easier to give in to those who knew the ropes and had the gab and concentrate on giving those who actually wanted a job, and were trying, a hard time.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#36 Post by Alan H » June 6th, 2012, 10:04 pm

Fury as Tory welfare police order kidney dialysis patient Paul Mickleburgh back to work
HE’s one of the world’s longest surviving kidney dialysis patients and has had 33 years of renal treatment, four failed transplants and 14 heart attacks.
But now, in a shameful indictment of Tory welfare cuts, Paul Mickleburgh, 53, has been deemed fit to work.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#37 Post by Nick » June 7th, 2012, 4:52 pm

First of all, an area of agreement. The organisation of the stewards was dire. Lessons must be learnt, and possibly penalties applied and stewards given some compensation.

But yet again, the Grauniad is more interested in spin than news. (ETA: though they eventually got round to supplying some information). For a start, all the stewards were volunteers. They were not threatened with their benefits being withdrawn. I see nothing wrong with asking for volunteer stewards. After all, several thousand have been recruited for the Olympics. Though it may seem strange to certain posters on TH (and you know who you are!!) if you wanted to attend the festivities, then volunteering is one way of getting to and from the event. It also seems that they were given various things, including boots and clothing. I know you can't eat boots, but they do have value. It is also a way of giving people something worthwhile to be able to put on their CV. Showing that you can be put into a position of trust and responsibility is of value, and increases their chances of getting picked by an employer. It might not sound much, but for some, it is something. Considering what we expect students to do before they are considered for "graduate level" jobs (ie work unpaid on a subject which may have no real application in the job market, and pay for the privilege too....) then it doesn't seem so unscrupulous.

As for Prescot's outburst, frankly, I think he should go and stuff his face with another pie. Certainly, the way the stewards were organised was dreadful, but the level of responsibility for this is way below government minister level. He is just intent on making mischief. Sometimes incompetence manifests itself. Of all people, Prezza should be aware of that...

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#38 Post by Dave B » June 7th, 2012, 5:02 pm

I have to agree that the media over blew it again and I need to get a new damper for my anti-knee-jerk brace! :D
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#39 Post by Alan H » June 7th, 2012, 5:28 pm

Nick wrote:First of all, an area of agreement. The organisation of the stewards was dire. Lessons must be learnt, and possibly penalties applied and stewards given some compensation.
Compensation? Why? It was all legal, wasn't it? And who would provide compensation? Molly Price? Seems unlikely given her past form and her company's current finances.
But yet again, the Grauniad is more interested in spin than news. (ETA: though they eventually got round to supplying some information). For a start, all the stewards were volunteers. They were not threatened with their benefits being withdrawn. I see nothing wrong with asking for volunteer stewards. After all, several thousand have been recruited for the Olympics. Though it may seem strange to certain posters on TH (and you know who you are!!) if you wanted to attend the festivities, then volunteering is one way of getting to and from the event. It also seems that they were given various things, including boots and clothing. I know you can't eat boots, but they do have value. It is also a way of giving people something worthwhile to be able to put on their CV. Showing that you can be put into a position of trust and responsibility is of value, and increases their chances of getting picked by an employer. It might not sound much, but for some, it is something. Considering what we expect students to do before they are considered for "graduate level" jobs (ie work unpaid on a subject which may have no real application in the job market, and pay for the privilege too....) then it doesn't seem so unscrupulous.
Source?
As for Prescot's outburst, frankly, I think he should go and stuff his face with another pie. Certainly, the way the stewards were organised was dreadful, but the level of responsibility for this is way below government minister level. He is just intent on making mischief. Sometimes incompetence manifests itself. Of all people, Prezza should be aware of that...
At what level do you think the buck stops?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#40 Post by Nick » June 7th, 2012, 5:47 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:First of all, an area of agreement. The organisation of the stewards was dire. Lessons must be learnt, and possibly penalties applied and stewards given some compensation.
Compensation? Why? It was all legal, wasn't it?
If you recruit volunteers, you still have responsibilities to them.
And who would provide compensation? Molly Price? Seems unlikely given her past form and her company's current finances.
I don't know enough of the state of Molly's finances. And I wasn't thinking of punitive damages, more a financial acknowledgement that their own level of stewardship was below what one could reasonably expect. I would have thought, given their contracts for the Olympics, that the company could be "leant on" to a certain extent. Pursuade them to do the decent thing.
But yet again, the Grauniad is more interested in spin than news. (ETA: though they eventually got round to supplying some information). For a start, all the stewards were volunteers. They were not threatened with their benefits being withdrawn. I see nothing wrong with asking for volunteer stewards. After all, several thousand have been recruited for the Olympics. Though it may seem strange to certain posters on TH (and you know who you are!!) if you wanted to attend the festivities, then volunteering is one way of getting to and from the event. It also seems that they were given various things, including boots and clothing. I know you can't eat boots, but they do have value. It is also a way of giving people something worthwhile to be able to put on their CV. Showing that you can be put into a position of trust and responsibility is of value, and increases their chances of getting picked by an employer. It might not sound much, but for some, it is something. Considering what we expect students to do before they are considered for "graduate level" jobs (ie work unpaid on a subject which may have no real application in the job market, and pay for the privilege too....) then it doesn't seem so unscrupulous.
Source?
Source of or for what?
As for Prescot's outburst, frankly, I think he should go and stuff his face with another pie. Certainly, the way the stewards were organised was dreadful, but the level of responsibility for this is way below government minister level. He is just intent on making mischief. Sometimes incompetence manifests itself. Of all people, Prezza should be aware of that...
At what level do you think the buck stops?[/quote]Certainly below cabinet ministers. Maybe with the civil servants who arranged the contracts. I can't be more specific than that, as I don't have a map of the organisational responsibilities involved, but it is ridiculous that something so comparatively small on a national scale should be blown out of all proportion. Yes, the volunteers suffered, but probably no more than thousands of other people in other aspects of life. Sh*t happens, and much of the time, it's not the government's fault (whichever party is in power).

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Government's workfare scheme

#41 Post by Alan H » June 7th, 2012, 6:26 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:First of all, an area of agreement. The organisation of the stewards was dire. Lessons must be learnt, and possibly penalties applied and stewards given some compensation.
Compensation? Why? It was all legal, wasn't it?
If you recruit volunteers, you still have responsibilities to them.
Were any contracts breached?
And who would provide compensation? Molly Price? Seems unlikely given her past form and her company's current finances.
I don't know enough of the state of Molly's finances. And I wasn't thinking of punitive damages, more a financial acknowledgement that their own level of stewardship was below what one could reasonably expect. I would have thought, given their contracts for the Olympics, that the company could be "leant on" to a certain extent. Pursuade them to do the decent thing.
I'm about to go out, so can't check, but there was a link to the company's financial info - not very healthy, IIRC. Besides, who would do the leaning and why?
Source of or for what?
Your assertions. For example, you said (or at least implied) that they got to keep their boots, etc. The original article doesn't say that, it just says the company had to spend the money. Workwear usually remains the property of the company, not the 'employee'.
As for Prescot's outburst, frankly, I think he should go and stuff his face with another pie. Certainly, the way the stewards were organised was dreadful, but the level of responsibility for this is way below government minister level. He is just intent on making mischief. Sometimes incompetence manifests itself. Of all people, Prezza should be aware of that...
At what level do you think the buck stops?
Certainly below cabinet ministers. Maybe with the civil servants who arranged the contracts. I can't be more specific than that, as I don't have a map of the organisational responsibilities involved, but it is ridiculous that something so comparatively small on a national scale should be blown out of all proportion. Yes, the volunteers suffered, but probably no more than thousands of other people in other aspects of life. Sh*t happens, and much of the time, it's not the government's fault (whichever party is in power).
No, it's never the Government's fault that people at the bottom end of society suffer daily, is it?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply