Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: flyer 0712 on 09 November 2015, 21:29:22
-
Any one watching yet another benefits series...no wonder the country is in such a mess....my god what is happening to our benefits system..supposed to go to those in real need..not those with pure greed and who are just pure lazy.. ???
-
Benefits should be on a sliding scale, fine to help when needed. But on a constant decline, makes you want to get a job.
Too many people get more money on benefits, than via a job. :(
-
My lads got a zero hour contract at Sports Direct.
He is on minimum wage (£5.15)
He gets anywhere from 4 to 16 hours a week.
If he works less then 16 hours, dole top up his money to the JSA mark and not one penny more.
He still has to sign on every week which cost him money and attend other so called workshops at the job centre on demand.
Obviously it cost him to get to work too which he receives not one penny towards his travel.
Last week, he had to cancel a shift at work because dole sent him on a course on how to write a friggin CV.
When he explained that he had to go into work, they told him that if he didn't attend the course, he would be sanctioned and loose his benefits for 2 weeks.
When he rang his boss and explained what was happening, his boss spat his dummy out and cancelled the rest of his shifts that week >:( >:(
He would be better off NOT working and sponging off the state >:(
The world is oppsing mad >:( >:( >:(
-
Shocking :o
I have, in my youth, been on various zero-hour contracts and know the pitfalls well. In his contract there must be wording to the effect of minimum notification times, methods of notification and if the employer has to give a reason for cancelling a shift. Also if his shifts are always a specific time and day or within an envelope then it would fall under the inappropriate use of the zero-hour framework under government guidance.
There is also the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act which prohibits an employer who uses zero hour from having exclusivity clauses:
"An employer must allow the individual to take work elsewhere in order to earn an income if they themselves do not offer sufficient hours.
If an employer includes an exclusivity clause in a zero hours contract, the individual cannot be bound by it, the law states the individual can ignore it.
An employer must not attempt to avoid the exclusivity ban by, for example, stipulating that the individual must seek their permission to look for or accept work elsewhere."
The use of cancelling shifts, as long as work was available for someone and not because there was a lack of demand (this is crucial, did someone else work his shift and can he prove it?) as 'punishment' can be interpreted as a breech of the SBEE Act.
-
In my experience, the problem with employment law is that it is very often unenforceable from the employees point of view.
It all looks well & good on paper, but in reality, if you rock the boat you get thrown overboard.
This is particularily true in low paid / low skill jobs as there is a huge over supply of cheap labour for these types of jobs.
I feel sorry for TG,s son. Sounds like an honest lad who isn't playing the system, and that can make life difficult.
If you have young kids and don't mind bending the truth a bit, it will often take a very well paid job to tempt you away from benefits.
My opinion is that the welfare state should provide food, shelter and warmth for the genuinely needy by way of vouchers, no cash involved.
Anything over and above that should only come from gainful employment. No harm in dreaming I suppose. ::) ;D
-
I hate to say this, but this country wants a flippin' revolution. >:(
They push and push, and people can only take so much, then that gives the rioting mob an excuse, then we all suffer !!!
Sports direct manager was in the wrong, as was the Job Centre, who, surely, could have looked at the situation in the correct way.
They shout that they want people in work, then stop them in their tracks.
Oh I wish, I wish, both parties could be taken to task....but that takes money !!!!! If you have all the correct facts TG, go to the press :y Its the only way to combat these numpties. Feel sorry for the lad :(
-
Ultimately he should try and find better employment elsewhere, although I understand that this is easier said than done especially in the NE.
I do a lot of recruitment and tender lots of applications for contracts, if you want me to give his CV a once-over when he has completed it just ask :y
-
I watched this programme last night, and many similar before it. There are always those who are workshy and take pride in fiddling the system, but most of these folk come across as miserable and defeated. Their only defence mechanism is to state that they are having the life of Riley and wouldn't want to have to get up and go to work in the morning.
The sad truth is that they would be incapable of working. They have spent the whole of their young lives lying in bed and stuffing their faces. You can get angry at the system, but I feel quite sorry for some of these miserable souls.
-
WORKING tax credits will soon be a thing of the past. This is good and bad. They help WORKING people on a low income but sadly encourage poor employers to pay piss poor wages in the first instance.This is because shabby employers are well aware that the government (the taxpayer) will top up the pittance they pay to their staff.
-
It's all well and truly f***ed up, and I can't even begin to see an answer.
-
I really don't think it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to subsidize poor employers.
If we have a business that is unable to pay a decent wage to it's staff without government help then that business is not viable.
-
One thing that pisses me off is the train operators.
Last year we the taxpayers subsidised these PRIVATE companies to the tune of four billion pounds.
Still, look on the bright side, at least this allowed them to pay large dividends to their shareholders. :( >:(
-
One thing that pisses me off is the train operators.
Last year we the taxpayers subsidised these PRIVATE companies to the tune of four billion pounds.
Still, look on the bright side, at least this allowed them to pay large dividends to their shareholders. :( >:(
Public ownership is not the answer, Jeremy. ;D
-
I really don't think it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to subsidize poor employers.
If we have a business that is unable to pay a decent wage to it's staff without government help then that business is not viable.
That's quite Right Wing stuff from you M'lud! :o :P ;D
-
One thing that pisses me off is the train operators.
Last year we the taxpayers subsidised these PRIVATE companies to the tune of four billion pounds.
Still, look on the bright side, at least this allowed them to pay large dividends to their shareholders. :( >:(
Public ownership is not the answer, Jeremy. ;D
Probably not.....but we were told that British Rail was flabby and wasteful and that private train operators would be lean and mean and not a burden on the taxpayer.
So what went wrong?
-
I really don't think it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to subsidize poor employers.
If we have a business that is unable to pay a decent wage to it's staff without government help then that business is not viable.
That's quite Right Wing stuff from you M'lud! :o :P ;D
Nah, Sir Tig......it is a socialist principle that government should encourage responsible employers. :y
-
I really don't think it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to subsidize poor employers.
If we have a business that is unable to pay a decent wage to it's staff without government help then that business is not viable.
That's quite Right Wing stuff from you M'lud! :o :P ;D
Nah, Sir Tig......it is a socialist principle that government should encourage responsible employers. :y
Ironic then that the government most responsible for the piss poor wages in this country was Tony Blair's Labour government. ::)
-
I really don't think it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to subsidize poor employers.
If we have a business that is unable to pay a decent wage to it's staff without government help then that business is not viable.
That's quite Right Wing stuff from you M'lud! :o :P ;D
Nah, Sir Tig......it is a socialist principle that government should encourage responsible employers. :y
Ironic then that the government most responsible for the piss poor wages in this country was Tony Blair's Labour government. ::)
Tony Blair had SFA to do with socialism, Sir Tig. ;D
More Tory Blair than Tony Blair. ;)
-
Yes. It was Tony Bliar that introduced academies, knowing full well it would make the unions powerless.
-
Yes. It was Tony Bliar that introduced academies, knowing full well it would make the unions powerless.
Blair spent too much time arse licking the rich to be a socialist.
-
I gave up when the overweight lady said she was OBEAST.
-
I gave up when the overweight lady said she was OBEAST.
Yeah...I noticed that. I'm pretty sure she said she was 27 too. :o
-
I gave up when the overweight lady said she was OBEAST.
Yeah...I noticed that. I'm pretty sure she said she was 27 too. :o
What, the one who had weight loss surgery? :o
-
I gave up when the overweight lady said she was OBEAST.
Yeah...I noticed that. I'm pretty sure she said she was 27 too. :o
What, the one who had weight loss surgery? :o
That's the one.
-
Bloody hell. I thought she was 40 ;D
-
I know programmes like this tend to highlight "worse case scenario"as it makes for "better"telly.Personally I don't watch any of these so called reality programmes.I do however feel sorry for those genuinely unemployed and actively seeking work,as they get tarred with the same dole scrounger brush.
-
Bloody hell. I thought she was 40 ;D
That's what worrying about where your next pie is coming from does to you. ;D
-
Bloody hell. I thought she was 40 ;D
That's what worrying about where your next pie is coming from does to you. ;D
Not really. :P
-
I gave up when the overweight lady said she was OBEAST.
Yeah...I noticed that. I'm pretty sure she said she was 27 too. :o
What, the one who had weight loss surgery? :o
That's the one.
I thought that up north you were quite partial to a fat lass. Enjoying animal sex on a half finished bucket of chicken. ;D
-
Bloody hell. I thought she was 40 ;D
That's what worrying about where your next pie is coming from does to you. ;D
Not really. :P
Yeah? Well you're like my lad...freaks of nature. He's just scoffed a whole pizza and a big dish of rice pudding and he's like a fickin beanpole. ;D
-
I gave up when the overweight lady said she was OBEAST.
Yeah...I noticed that. I'm pretty sure she said she was 27 too. :o
What, the one who had weight loss surgery? :o
That's the one.
I thought that up north you were quite partial to a fat lass. Enjoying animal sex on a half finished bucket of chicken. ;D
Sex can wait till the chicken's gone. ;D
-
Bloody hell. I thought she was 40 ;D
That's what worrying about where your next pie is coming from does to you. ;D
Not really. :P
Yeah? Well you're like my lad...freaks of nature. He's just scoffed a whole pizza and a big dish of rice pudding and he's like a fickin beanpole. ;D
What can I say? Some people are just fat people, trapped inside body of thin people.
-
We all know that Tone B Liar is a treasonous cun... :-X
-
One thing that pisses me off is the train operators.
Last year we the taxpayers subsidised these PRIVATE companies to the tune of four billion pounds.
Still, look on the bright side, at least this allowed them to pay large dividends to their shareholders. :( >:(
It is worth bearing in mind that a substantial percentage of shareholders in UK equities are Life insurance companies, pension funds, unit trusts etc. These account for a much higher percentage of shares held than those held by individuals. So an awful lot of the money paid out in dividends goes back - albeit indirectly to the people in the form of investment and pensions growth.
Also worth thinking about when Corbyn starts battering on about re-nationalising assets without compensation.
-
A little update on the lad .................
After all the shite that he has had to put up with the dole office, he received a letter yesterday saying that they are going to review his benefits ::)
The letter is demanding that he allows them to make a "home visit / interview" somewhere between 9am and 3:30pm on the 20th of this month.
He wanted to have the interview at the job centre but i've stepped in and told his to let them through the front door so I can sit in on it ;)
Apparently, he has only had his wages topped up once in the 3 months he has been signing on.
They have also refused to confirm that he is even getting his NI paid which is the only reason to sign on nowdays if your in his situation.
I remember when I was signing on in the past.
As soon as you get any job which is less then 16 hours, in theory you can attend and claim your NI BUT believe me, they make it as hard as possible for you. In fact, they affectively forced me to pay my own NI by making me still apply for at least 10 jobs a week (even though I was on a zero hour contract working anywhere from 5 too 50 hours a week) and attend every interview and course they could think off on a weekly basis.
After been sanctioned twice for not turning up to interviews, I walked out before I punched the smarmy Lady bits >:(
Nowdays, I pay my stamp at the end of the year based on my annual earnings.
Because when my business went bang a few years ago and due to the money problems, I personally was a couple of months behind on my NI. Due to this, I never received one friggin penny out of the system in my pocket. All I got was my stamp paid >:(
I honestly think that this is was they are trying to force on my lad because under the rules that was brought in a few years ago ............ If you haven't paid FULL NI contributions for the last 2 years UNBROKEN then you get sweet opps ALL benefits >:( >:(
They also get the added bonus of forcing another person off the unemployment list ............. self-abusers >:( >:(
Good old statistics eh >:( >:(
Matt / Migv6 ...............
He has only been in the job 3 months and is on a 6 month (fire him at the drop of a hat) trial so basically he has opps all working rights
He has a CV but i'll have a word with him anyway :y Cheers :)
-
And for those of you who think that treating the scrounging bastards this way is the only answer, are you really sure your job is safe? Doesn't matter if you've been in a steady job for twenty years, you'll get exactly the same treatment.
-
And for those of you who think that treating the scrounging bastards this way is the only answer, are you really sure your job is safe? Doesn't matter if you've been in a steady job for twenty years, you'll get exactly the same treatment.
:( Dead right there mate , the days of job security have long gone >:(
-
And for those of you who think that treating the scrounging bastards this way is the only answer, are you really sure your job is safe? Doesn't matter if you've been in a steady job for twenty years, you'll get exactly the same treatment.
Spot on that Stemo :y