|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 10, 2022 15:24:56 GMT
I had to sign on during lockdown. They shut down TV and film production and closed the pubs and restaurants so I had very little work. I got £100 a week. No one is living the life of Riley on Universal credit. I understand there is a rule that says for that money you agree to spend up to 35 hours looking for or dong work. In fact I think it would be hard to survive off it with all the prices going up. That was with the extra enhancement, it's usually £80 a week. Yeah, you have to jump through all sorts of hoops including showing what you are doing each day to find a job, applying for a certain amount of jobs per week and attending an interview every fortnight at the Job Centre to show what you are doing to get off their lists. It was more hassle than it was worth for less than a day's pay a week. I went back to agency chefing as soon as pubs and restaurants reopened. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 10, 2022 15:32:04 GMT
I understand there is a rule that says for that money you agree to spend up to 35 hours looking for or dong work. In fact I think it would be hard to survive off it with all the prices going up. That was with the extra enhancement, it's usually £80 a week. Yeah, you have to jump through all sorts of hoops including showing what you are doing each day to find a job, applying for a certain amount of jobs per week and attending an interview every fortnight at the Job Centre to show what you are doing to get off their lists. It was more hassle than it was worth for less than a day's pay a week. I went back to agency chefing as soon as pubs and restaurants reopened. They say unemployment now is low, but I reckon there are probably many who are entitled to benefits but do not want to sign what is effectively a long contract which will order you around like a pleb. I think a large cost of government benefits is not what they pay the recipient, but the cost of managing each recipient, making him or her march each day, often playing a kind of game. There are some really awful jobs out there that no one in their right mind would wish to do. Like snakes and ladders, they are the snakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 10, 2022 15:42:55 GMT
That was with the extra enhancement, it's usually £80 a week. Yeah, you have to jump through all sorts of hoops including showing what you are doing each day to find a job, applying for a certain amount of jobs per week and attending an interview every fortnight at the Job Centre to show what you are doing to get off their lists. It was more hassle than it was worth for less than a day's pay a week. I went back to agency chefing as soon as pubs and restaurants reopened. They say unemployment now is low, but I reckon there are probably many who are entitled to benefits but do not want to sign what is effectively a long contract which will order you around like a pleb. I think a large cost of government benefits is not what they pay the recipient, but the cost of managing each recipient, making him or her march each day, often playing a kind of game. There are some really awful jobs out there that no one in their right mind would wish to do. Like snakes and ladders, they are the snakes. Yup, I delayed it until all my savings were gone. Break any of the conditions they lay down and it's grounds to have your payments stopped. I was given a set amount of time to state what job I would accept but after that I had to accept any type of job at min wage. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 10, 2022 15:57:47 GMT
They say unemployment now is low, but I reckon there are probably many who are entitled to benefits but do not want to sign what is effectively a long contract which will order you around like a pleb. I think a large cost of government benefits is not what they pay the recipient, but the cost of managing each recipient, making him or her march each day, often playing a kind of game. There are some really awful jobs out there that no one in their right mind would wish to do. Like snakes and ladders, they are the snakes. Yup, I delayed it until all my savings were gone. Break any of the conditions they lay down and it's grounds to have your payments stopped. I was given a set amount of time to state what job I would accept but after that I had to accept any type of job at min wage. I think these people who organise and manage benefits and recruitment need to work more on the attraction principle rather than the threat and stealth principles. They appear to be stitching the game up, like you can switch between being in recruitment and in benefit job advisor or whatever they are called. Everything seems to be going to these middle women called agencies, where you don't know what you are signing up for because it is not a job but a name on their books so they take a big cut of the pay. Like to give you an example in figures, someone earning £10ph in a care home will be sold to the care home at £23ph. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 10, 2022 16:02:48 GMT
Yup, I delayed it until all my savings were gone. Break any of the conditions they lay down and it's grounds to have your payments stopped. I was given a set amount of time to state what job I would accept but after that I had to accept any type of job at min wage. I think these people who organise and manage benefits and recruitment need to work more on the attraction principle rather than the threat and stealth principles. They appear to be stitching the game up, like you can switch between being in recruitment and in benefit job advisor or whatever they are called. Everything seems to be going to these middle women called agencies, where you don't know what you are signing up for because it is not a job but a name on their books so they take a big cut of the pay. Like to give you an example in figures, someone earning £10ph in a care home will be sold to the care home at £23ph. It's double for chef work. If I get £12.50 they charge £25. If they are desperate and you don't fancy the job you can ask for more and they get less. I did that a lot. If it was miles away or a shitty job I just said ''not enough money''. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 10, 2022 17:15:52 GMT
I think these people who organise and manage benefits and recruitment need to work more on the attraction principle rather than the threat and stealth principles. They appear to be stitching the game up, like you can switch between being in recruitment and in benefit job advisor or whatever they are called. Everything seems to be going to these middle women called agencies, where you don't know what you are signing up for because it is not a job but a name on their books so they take a big cut of the pay. Like to give you an example in figures, someone earning £10ph in a care home will be sold to the care home at £23ph. It's double for chef work. If I get £12.50 they charge £25. If they are desperate and you don't fancy the job you can ask for more and they get less. I did that a lot. If it was miles away or a shitty job I just said ''not enough money''. Yes indeed, that's capitalism. I think you should be able to bypass the agencies altogether and collect the full 25 quid. Chances are the agencies stitch the employer up with a dodgy contract as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 10, 2022 17:25:24 GMT
It's double for chef work. If I get £12.50 they charge £25. If they are desperate and you don't fancy the job you can ask for more and they get less. I did that a lot. If it was miles away or a shitty job I just said ''not enough money''. Yes indeed, that's capitalism. I think you should be able to bypass the agencies altogether and collect the full 25 quid. Chances are the agencies stitch the employer up with a dodgy contract as well. If I liked a job enough I gave them my phone number. Didn't get more money but I got more work. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 10, 2022 17:36:25 GMT
Yes indeed, that's capitalism. I think you should be able to bypass the agencies altogether and collect the full 25 quid. Chances are the agencies stitch the employer up with a dodgy contract as well. If I liked a job enough I gave them my phone number. Didn't get more money but I got more work. It would realty piss me off having to pay agencies. I'd rather the employer saved money than paying money for essentially what is bullshit. I think the government needs to fix this scam. Wherever some business is making well over the odds it is always either a law causing the distortion or some kind of stealth practice. The agencies are playing the same game as the accountants are known for. Use an accountant (often retired HMRC) and your accounts will always go through without trouble. Try and cut this middle man out though and you will find HMRC try and screw you, even if it means doing it unlawfully. Employment law is a bitch and I think this is the crunch point with employers. You can be badly burnt. I suppose the best way it to have a good and trusting relationship with your employer and that solves everything. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Dec 11, 2022 0:13:33 GMT
And yet the way that UC is structured it actually encourages people not to work full time. An anomaly in the welfare programme means someone on Universal Credit could receive a total income of nearly £45,000 a year for doing the equivalent of two days’ work in a low-paid job.
To take home the same amount after tax, someone not on benefits would have to earn nearly £62,000 a year.
I read that too , little point in working more than 16 hours a week when benefits can make the p/t wages up to the equivalent of mid £40000s take home pay . Just shows the benefits cap is a myth |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 11, 2022 8:12:02 GMT
That was with the extra enhancement, it's usually £80 a week. Yeah, you have to jump through all sorts of hoops including showing what you are doing each day to find a job, applying for a certain amount of jobs per week and attending an interview every fortnight at the Job Centre to show what you are doing to get off their lists. It was more hassle than it was worth for less than a day's pay a week. I went back to agency chefing as soon as pubs and restaurants reopened. , but I reckon there are probably many who are entitled to benefits but do not want to sign what is effectively a long contract which will order you around like a pleb. I think a large cost of government benefits is not what they pay the recipient, but the cost of managing each recipient, making him or her march each day, often playing a kind of game. There are some really awful jobs out there that no one in their right mind would wish to do. Like snakes and ladders, they are the snakes. It's nice for the govt to claim unemployment is low but it's more accurate to say that the number of people looking for work is low. That's what's really happening. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 18, 2022 16:16:05 GMT
So I read the city and guilds summary of the report (but didn’t download the full thing) and from the summary I gleaned the following
The report is based on a survey of 5006 individuals aged 18-24
13% of those surveyed were ‘not in employment or studying’ and another 3% were ‘economically active’. They take that figure, and expand the 16% of five thousand to say this means 859,000 young people are out of work or education across the UK
Well, if I take that to be the case, and I’m not calling it either way, the report summary says nearly one in ten (9%) - that’s 227,000 people - of those ‘not in work or education’ say they never will be.
I’m not sure if we have a mathematician in the house but where I come from 9% of 859,000 is a figure rather closer to 80,000 than 227,000.
The C&G go on to say 30% of those surveyed feel they’ll never reach their career goals (probably the most honest statement in the report) but then call on society to improve the lot of the convicted criminal sentenced to a period of imprisonment for their crime.
Sorry but in my book the county lines crack dealer needs to be left to die in the gutter on being thrown out of prison as how else are we to show our kids a life of crime does not pay
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 19, 2022 11:31:19 GMT
[The] report summary says nearly one in ten (9%) - that’s 227,000 people - of those ‘not in work or education’ say they never will be. I’m not sure if we have a mathematician in the house but where I come from 9% of 859,000 is a figure rather closer to 80,000 than 227,000. They say: "Of those currently studying or out of work". Which is, I suppose, the long form of not working. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 19, 2022 17:32:46 GMT
[The] report summary says nearly one in ten (9%) - that’s 227,000 people - of those ‘not in work or education’ say they never will be. I’m not sure if we have a mathematician in the house but where I come from 9% of 859,000 is a figure rather closer to 80,000 than 227,000. They say: "Of those currently studying or out of work". Which is, I suppose, the long form of not working. That is a long form of NEET (not in employment, education or training) a government bean counter tickbox. I’m familiar with it. The thing that got me was their assertion that 9 per cent of an equals b when the real answer is c. Diane Flabbot being given charge of the abacus again I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 19, 2022 17:41:54 GMT
I had to sign on during lockdown. They shut down TV and film production and closed the pubs and restaurants so I had very little work. I got £100 a week. No one is living the life of Riley on Universal credit. I understand there is a rule that says for that money you agree to spend up to 35 hours looking for or dong work. In fact I think it would be hard to survive off it with all the prices going up. Tbh if it was my own dong then I might be interested but I’m not going to work on other peoples dongs. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 19, 2022 18:48:51 GMT
They say: "Of those currently studying or out of work". Which is, I suppose, the long form of not working. That is a long form of NEET (not in employment, education or training) a government bean counter tickbox. I’m familiar with it. The thing that got me was their assertion that 9 per cent of an equals b when the real answer is c. Diane Flabbot being given charge of the abacus again I guess. I believe 'NEETs' are not in education or training. The report referred to those in education, but not in employment. |
|
