Is Slavery acceptable?
Yes, I gave up my job to work for nothing the rest of my life
13.2% (10)
13.2% (10)
No, slavery is wrong as people aren't born to work for the wealthy few
86.8% (66)
86.8% (66)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Politicians fight for Slavery to be Acceptable for Graduates

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

the clockmaker:

I find it kind of funny that you are calling me simplistic and then running with the view that if a specific employer does not pay a specific employee than that employee is doomed. I guess that means that when I was made redundant I starved to death and am not actually discussing this now.

In a free society there exists the option to opt in and out of agreements. Job seekers allowance is an agreement that the government will support you for a brief period while you look for work, you can opt out of this by finding work. YOu opt in to an agreement with an employer that you will work for them and they will give you money. You can then opt out of that and into an agreement with a differing employer.

Do you get what I am saying, legitimate question because I am kind of hung over and not phrasing myself all that well.

I do get what you're saying, but I feel that's not really an applicable parallel: presumably, after redundancy, you either had some money saved up, or some recourse to get enough to live by elsewhere.

Many of those on JSA have neither. Threatening to cut somebody off from their only source of food or rent if they don't work a full-time week for a tiny fraction of minimum wage is a huge "stick".

(Plus, to be clear, I never said that an employee fired by an employer is "doomed"; I said that threatening redundancy can be thought of as a "stick" just as much as it can be thought of as "withdrawing a carrot").

Vegosiux:

I'm aware of that. But while there are trends, you can't know for sure. It's a gamble. Some bets indeed are safer than others, but then again a slave could run away too and hope to come across someone who will recognize their worth as a human being, after all, not every free person living in a slave-owning society is likely to be fine with it, or willing to exploit slaves.

Not really comparable? I know, but the question is, where do we draw the line between bets one needs to made being "safe enough" and "too skewed in favor of the house"? Genuine question here, mind. Because while I agree with you that the situation described in OP isn't "slavery" by definition, the bets people who are dealing with it have to make are still kind of skewed in favor of the house.

Okay, a reasonable position, I may even half agree that the allowance is too low, I am just blinded by white hot rage when people claim that it is slavery.

To put it another way, if you get whistled at in the street, I can agree that the person who did that is a dick and was rude to you, but I am going to get very angry if you (the you of course being the hypothetical you, not you personally) claimed that he brutally raped you. See where I am coming from here. It is an insult to those who actually suffer it when people appropriate slavery for their own, relatively minor issues.

Essentially, everything we do regarding future planning is a gamble to some degree, but there are gambles people shouldn't be coerced into - and keep in mind that physical force and direct threats to one's life or health are not the only form of coercion. I'm still undecided on whether or not the OP situation is such a gamble, but I do know it's one I'd really rather not have to take.

Geology is not exactly a boom industry. But yes, there is always going to be risk involved in choosing your career, but when you choose wrong, you don't sit around hoping that your choice will retroactively become right, you suck it up and try again. I lost my job and so I did the shit jobs no one else wanted, getting paid fuck all until I could get something better. The OP's source on the other hand, does not seem to have tried at all, and is happy doing some resume padding in her own field without pay, because hey, the government will support her poor decisions won't it. I mean, she is happy to sit on job-seekers allowance and not seek a job.

Should everyone research what they can about their chosen careers? Of course. But there are factors of uncertainty. And while "Can this support me financially" should be an important consideration, I'm with you on that one, "Do I want to be doing this for most of the rest of my life" is another one. Finding a balance between those two is something I really don't want to get into, however, because it'd be liable to blow up then I couldn't make heads and tails of it. Still, you don't have to be poor to be miserable.

Of course, that is personal preference, but for me it comes down to a few basic rules for a career,
1-It must provide a basic standard of living- You can choose a fulfilling but low paying job and have a quiet, simple life, or a high paying and stressful one, or strike a balance half way between, but you need to be able to pay your bills on time and in full. So doing volunteer work with no savings behind you is a no go.
2-It must be tolerable- You do not need to enjoy it, I mean it would be better if you did, but it is not a necessity. What is needed is that you can cope with it. If you can't handle the sight of corpses, don't be a coroner. If you can't handle tragedy, don't work in the family courts (seriously, I had decent paying work lined up there and could not, emotionally, deal with that, it would have driven me into depression, a few weeks was bad enough)
3-It must be sustainable- Pretty simple, you must be able to continue working in it. In the most simple terms, renovation is a career, renovating one dude's house is not.
4-there will always be risk, you must assess that risk- There is always a chance that if you are in renovation the market will collapse, if you are a soldier peace will be declared or if you are a doctor some magic machine will fix everybody cheaper than you can. Some of these are more likely than others and you need to be aware of them.
5-Be honest with yourself- Is this going to pay my bills at the stated rate? Can I deal with doing this job everyday?
Is this position for one year, ten , twenty or for life? Am I good enough to carve my way in the field? Am I okay with being mediocre at it while others rise? -You need to ask all these questions and more and be honest will yourself about the answers, don't try and wriggle around it, if you aren't good enough at the job, you cannot consider that as a viable option.
6- always have a plan B- Sometimes shit goes wrong, it can't be helped, no blame attaches etc etc. You need to know what to do if you are made redundant, made physically unable to do your job (the example I was given when this was explained to me was losing my leg in a car accident), have a mid-life crises, have a mid life crysis, your field ceases to exist or any one of the thousand other things that can go wrong. You need to know where, roughly you want to go, what is required of you there and build up that secondary skill set as both a way to enrich your life and a safety net for when you fall.

That is how I weigh things up before taking a job, but like I said, personal preference, just so long as you are not sitting on your arse lamenting that the world isn't bending over backwards to give you work as a goddamn geologist. Make your choices, wear them.

Silvanus:

I do get what you're saying, but I feel that's not really an applicable parallel: presumably, after redundancy, you either had some money saved up, or some recourse to get enough to live by elsewhere.

I had enough to live on about 20$ a week for food, luckily I had a roof over my head. I was eligible for the dole, but I will confess that while I will take any work I can get (unless I have something better) my pride will never allow me to live on the dole, I know that that is not so great a thing, but did you know that if you go to the right place, you can get enough main meals for a fortnight on 15 or so bucks, and then you can get maybe a homebrand tub of ice cream or something. It was not a fun time, luckily it was only for a couple of months before I managed to scrounge some work.

Many of those on JSA have neither. Threatening to cut somebody off from their only source of food or rent if they don't work a full-time week for a tiny fraction of minimum wage is a huge "stick".

Or they can seek other employment, you know, do what the Job Seekers Allowance is for. While I admit that many people may legitimately have issues finding it, the OP's source was not even looking for a job, she was doing volunteer resume padding. It is supposed to be a safety net (which is why it does need to be higher than that, though not quite minimum wage, because if it is more profitable for them to be on benefits, they will remain on benefits.) But I see so many people using it as a hammock.

There is always work out there, work that many people feel is beneath them, work that they will not take.

(Plus, to be clear, I never said that an employee fired by an employer is "doomed"; I said that threatening redundancy can be thought of as a "stick" just as much as it can be thought of as "withdrawing a carrot").

You said starvation was the stick, for starvation to be an effective threat there needs to be no out for the 'victim', if starvation is an effective 'stick' therefore the 'victim' has no escape and is therefore doomed if they are not paid. Starvation is not an effective threat (in this situation) because the 'victim' has an out, therefore, carrot, not stick.

Just to be clear though, you seem pretty reasonable, and a lot of what you are saying I can get behind, so, just for my internal categorisation between 'on my side but has issues with implementation of similar ideals' and 'the opposition' are you calling the OP's situation slavery. Because that is really my sticking point here, I can have a nice calm, compromise-capable discussion with someone who accepts that it is not, but have no respect for the position that it is.

the clockmaker:

Just to be clear though, you seem pretty reasonable, and a lot of what you are saying I can get behind, so, just for my internal categorisation between 'on my side but has issues with implementation of similar ideals' and 'the opposition' are you calling the OP's situation slavery. Because that is really my sticking point here, I can have a nice calm, compromise-capable discussion with someone who accepts that it is not, but have no respect for the position that it is.

Ah, absolutely not. I believe the back-to-work schemes are pretty damn unreasonable, but they're not slavery. Calling them such would do an injustice to what slavery actually is. (In the same vein, I don't like how many far-right movements are labelled 'fascist', which damages our historical understanding).

Aye, I can see where you're coming from too.

Silvanus:

the clockmaker:

Just to be clear though, you seem pretty reasonable, and a lot of what you are saying I can get behind, so, just for my internal categorisation between 'on my side but has issues with implementation of similar ideals' and 'the opposition' are you calling the OP's situation slavery. Because that is really my sticking point here, I can have a nice calm, compromise-capable discussion with someone who accepts that it is not, but have no respect for the position that it is.

Ah, absolutely not. I believe the back-to-work schemes are pretty damn unreasonable, but they're not slavery. Calling them such would do an injustice to what slavery actually is. (In the same vein, I don't like how many far-right movements are labelled 'fascist', which damages our historical understanding).

Aye, I can see where you're coming from too.

Cool. I agree then that the allowance as set out in the JSA seems to be too low.

the clockmaker:
..I lost my job and so I did the shit jobs no one else wanted, getting paid fuck all until I could get something better. The OP's source on the other hand, does not seem to have tried at all, and is happy doing some resume padding in her own field without pay, because hey, the government will support her poor decisions won't it. I mean, she is happy to sit on job-seekers allowance and not seek a job.

What gives you that impression? Last i heard she has a job now, so it seems reasonable to believe she was actually looking for a job whilst also volunteering, especially as JSA actually sets out a list of requirements for you to fulfill to continue receiving your benefits, x number of interviews per week etc.

Even if she wasn't, it still makes no sense to continue giving someone working full-time a Job Seekers allowance. If you've given her a full-time job, pay her for a full time job. If you're giving someone a 54 a week allowance and want them to work, make them work for 54 hours worth of minimum wage a week and let them continue fulfilling their JSA obligations and padding their resume in the rest of their time, because surprisingly enough, padding your resume is actually what gets you a half-way decent job nowadays.

Forgetting the whole looking for a job in the meantime thing for a second, either she's being paid by taxes for stacking shelves at poundland or for volunteering at a museum, which is better for society, which would you rather pay for, and which is going to help her to eventually get a job most beneficial to society? I just don't see why you're so happy for your taxes to go to someone to work at poundland stacking shelves but are annoyed by the idea of paying for them to volunteer at a museum. If we're making the assumption that she's just a lazy scum-of-the-earth good-for-nothing bum leeching off society, at least she's doing it whilst volunteering somewhere that provides culture and history and generally improves society overall.

the clockmaker:
The OP's source on the other hand, does not seem to have tried at all, and is happy doing some resume padding in her own field without pay, because hey, the government will support her poor decisions won't it. I mean, she is happy to sit on job-seekers allowance and not seek a job.

Sleekit has pointed out at least twice in this thread that in order to get JSA you have to be actively trying to get a job.

Shpongled:
Forgetting the whole looking for a job in the meantime thing for a second, either she's being paid by taxes for stacking shelves at poundland or for volunteering at a museum, which is better for society, which would you rather pay for, and which is going to help her to eventually get a job most beneficial to society?

Uh, that's actually going to be stacking shelves in exchange for JSA.

Because it's in a commercial enterprise, will want regular hours, will enforce those hours, will demand some basic productivity level and that's all stuff which many volunteer tasks don't have. And if you put that on paper in a resume, it tells the reader that you can at least do that. Not always a given for longterm unemployed people.

Quite frankly if someone's out of art school or something similar, has years worth of holes in a resume and some volunteering, I'd advise against hiring because, how do you know such a person understands the concept of work and productivity? Let alone more complex concepts like teamplay, hierarchy etc. They've never been in such an environment yet and therefore don't know. So if you hire them, they'll be learning those things and having to adapt to that while you're paying for it.

Suppose someone instead failed school and worked at McDonalds for two years for a shitty wage, then I'd go for that person instead. Why? Because you can be damn sure they're familiar to the concept of working their arse off, having a boss, following simple rules and a few other job-relevant skills.

Heck, that's the whole idea behind these work schemes to begin with: Give people work if they haven't worked yet, or haven't for years, because you can be sure they either learn or re-familiarise themselves with some basic skills asociated with work.

I was advised on several occasions to list all holiday jobs I've had for example. That way you can see that ever since age 15 I've not sat still for a single day. That tells someone you know about basic work, and don't like to lounge around doing nothing for weeks on end.

Their is an awful lot of exagerration involved in the reporting. You can, for example, refuse to take a work placement. You will loose you're Job Seekers Allowance - as you need to be demonstrating a willingness not only to get a job, but to improve you chances of getting a job. You aren't forced into it - which rather makes the slavery comments look as pitifully hyperbolic as they actual are. You also ONLY loose you're job seekers allowance - the money you get for looking for jobs/helping yourself become employable. Housing benefit, child benefit, and the various other forms you can still receive.

Blablahb:

Shpongled:
Forgetting the whole looking for a job in the meantime thing for a second, either she's being paid by taxes for stacking shelves at poundland or for volunteering at a museum, which is better for society, which would you rather pay for, and which is going to help her to eventually get a job most beneficial to society?

Uh, that's actually going to be stacking shelves in exchange for JSA.

Because it's in a commercial enterprise, will want regular hours, will enforce those hours, will demand some basic productivity level and that's all stuff which many volunteer tasks don't have. And if you put that on paper in a resume, it tells the reader that you can at least do that. Not always a given for longterm unemployed people.

Quite frankly if someone's out of art school or something similar, has years worth of holes in a resume and some volunteering, I'd advise against hiring because, how do you know such a person understands the concept of work and productivity? Let alone more complex concepts like teamplay, hierarchy etc. They've never been in such an environment yet and therefore don't know. So if you hire them, they'll be learning those things and having to adapt to that while you're paying for it.

Suppose someone instead failed school and worked at McDonalds for two years for a shitty wage, then I'd go for that person instead. Why? Because you can be damn sure they're familiar to the concept of working their arse off, having a boss, following simple rules and a few other job-relevant skills.

Heck, that's the whole idea behind these work schemes to begin with: Give people work if they haven't worked yet, or haven't for years, because you can be sure they either learn or re-familiarise themselves with some basic skills asociated with work.

I was advised on several occasions to list all holiday jobs I've had for example. That way you can see that ever since age 15 I've not sat still for a single day. That tells someone you know about basic work, and don't like to lounge around doing nothing for weeks on end.

Most of that only half-applies to jobs in tertiary industries. If you're applying for a job at a museum then volunteering experience at the museum carries far more weight than shelf-stacking experience. Obviously volunteer experience AND no holes in your resume is going to be what get's you the job, for the applicant who get's the job is going to both BOTH types of experience that get them in, thus forcing her into full-time shelf-stacking, leaving her unable to volunteer, only hinders her chances at getting any job later on involving working in a museum. Most jobs in those sorts of places tend to require plenty of volunteer experience as a baseline, shitty manual labour is something 95% of the adult population has experience in, extensive volunteer work at a museum is not.

All of that is besides the point that we're paying her JSA either way, so i'd much rather my taxes went to museum work than poundland. Poundland can afford to hire their own staff, museums often can't, poundland provides nothing to society other than tacky products for cheap, museums provide culture and a whole lot more. And it's also beside's the fact that there's nothing stopping the Government from just giving her part-time work at poundland, allowing her to continue her volunteering AS WELL AS giving her something to fill the gaps in her resume.

So basically your point carries no weight at all.

GonvilleBromhead:
*snip*

God help us if you're the example of an employable person.

DJjaffacake:

the clockmaker:
The OP's source on the other hand, does not seem to have tried at all, and is happy doing some resume padding in her own field without pay, because hey, the government will support her poor decisions won't it. I mean, she is happy to sit on job-seekers allowance and not seek a job.

Sleekit has pointed out at least twice in this thread that in order to get JSA you have to be actively trying to get a job.

If the system is anything like the one that I knew growing up in a very heavily unemployed town, it can be very easily gamed.

Shpongled:

the clockmaker:
..I lost my job and so I did the shit jobs no one else wanted, getting paid fuck all until I could get something better. The OP's source on the other hand, does not seem to have tried at all, and is happy doing some resume padding in her own field without pay, because hey, the government will support her poor decisions won't it. I mean, she is happy to sit on job-seekers allowance and not seek a job.

What gives you that impression? Last i heard she has a job now, so it seems reasonable to believe she was actually looking for a job whilst also volunteering, especially as JSA actually sets out a list of requirements for you to fulfill to continue receiving your benefits, x number of interviews per week etc.

As I said, the system can be very easily gamed, but would you be able to post what the actual requirements are so I can compare with the system that I know.

Even if she wasn't, it still makes no sense to continue giving someone working full-time a Job Seekers allowance. If you've given her a full-time job, pay her for a full time job. If you're giving someone a 54 a week allowance and want them to work, make them work for 54 hours worth of minimum wage a week and let them continue fulfilling their JSA obligations and padding their resume in the rest of their time, because surprisingly enough, padding your resume is actually what gets you a half-way decent job nowadays.

Actually, what gets you a job is
-Showing that you can show up on time with a good work ethic day after day for a long period of time, a few hours a week does not provide that
-A willingness to grit your teeth and do it/a knowledge that work is work is work-Doing a shitty job provides that

most places recognise padding as just that, without substance, without real merit. Most places would rather you had concrete experience than padding.

Forgetting the whole looking for a job in the meantime thing for a second, either she's being paid by taxes for stacking shelves at poundland or for volunteering at a museum, which is better for society, which would you rather pay for, and which is going to help her to eventually get a job most beneficial to society? I just don't see why you're so happy for your taxes to go to someone to work at poundland stacking shelves but are annoyed by the idea of paying for them to volunteer at a museum. If we're making the assumption that she's just a lazy scum-of-the-earth good-for-nothing bum leeching off society,

never called her lazy, never called her scum, please do not straw man me.

at least she's doing it whilst volunteering somewhere that provides culture and history and generally improves society overall.

See this is the sort of attitude that leads to people being unwilling to take 'shitty' jobs, an arrogance about a career path that has no notion of providing her with paying employment for the next few years, an assumption that someone simply being at a museum is contributing more to society than someone doing a 'shitty' job and the belief that culture and history stem from museums as opposed to being recorded by them.

I don't think you can be a "volunteer slave", that is, "slave" usually implies force involved.

A person is forced to be a slave, and has his/her freedoms taken away (obviously), which I think it a gross moral mistake.

Shpongled:
Most of that only half-applies to jobs in tertiary industries. If you're applying for a job at a museum then volunteering experience at the museum carries far more weight than shelf-stacking experience. Obviously volunteer experience AND no holes in your resume is going to be what get's you the job, for the applicant who get's the job is going to both BOTH types of experience that get them in, thus forcing her into full-time shelf-stacking, leaving her unable to volunteer, only hinders her chances at getting any job later on involving working in a museum. Most jobs in those sorts of places tend to require plenty of volunteer experience as a baseline, shitty manual labour is something 95% of the adult population has experience in, extensive volunteer work at a museum is not.

And what exactly are the benefits of such a volunteer task towards an employer? Because I see none that they can be certain of, while as I explained, there are things they can be certain of when someone's worked in a store.

Also it makes no sense to claim letting someone turn down paid work or a chance at paid work, in order to continue doing volunteer tasks. That prolongs unemployment.

Shpongled:
All of that is besides the point that we're paying her JSA either way, so i'd much rather my taxes went to museum work than poundland. Poundland can afford to hire their own staff, museums often can't, poundland provides nothing to society other than tacky products for cheap, museums provide culture and a whole lot more.

It doesn't necessarily have to be in that form, but Poundland is losing money training and guiding such jobseekers, and loses money on lower productivity they'll show. The compensation (which keeps companies cooperating with such a scheme, because they wouldn't if they lost money on it) is that their wages are lower to the point of covering travel expenses.

There's really no constructive way to disagree with that arrangement unless it includes a cost estimate on what they lose to taking part in JSA schemes.

Shpongled:
And it's also beside's the fact that there's nothing stopping the Government from just giving her part-time work at poundland, allowing her to continue her volunteering AS WELL AS giving her something to fill the gaps in her resume.

Why on earth would volunteering be more important than work? Someone who believes that can simple refuse, lose JSA and live off the minimum of benefits.

But you can't eat your cake and have it. It's a job seekers allowance. Someone who doesn't seek a job shouldn't have it. It's not an unlimited-free-money scheme, nor is the government obligated to provide a job to anyone with even the craziest standards. That's not how it works.

the clockmaker:
See this is the sort of attitude that leads to people being unwilling to take 'shitty' jobs, an arrogance about a career path that has no notion of providing her with paying employment for the next few years, an assumption that someone simply being at a museum is contributing more to society than someone doing a 'shitty' job and the belief that culture and history stem from museums as opposed to being recorded by them.

That's not my point at all. If it were poundland or the museum paying her wages it wouldn't make a difference, because a job is a job and everyone needs money to get by. But in this case it's ME paying her wages through taxes, and given the option of paying to support a museum or paying to support poundland with my taxes, i'd take the museum any day of the week.

I don't know what that last sentence is about, obviously history doesn't stem from museums but there's no arguing museums are culturally important buildings. You could perhaps argue less so in todays modern age of the internet but i digress.

Blablahb:
And what exactly are the benefits of such a volunteer task towards an employer? Because I see none that they can be certain of, while as I explained, there are things they can be certain of when someone's worked in a store.

Also it makes no sense to claim letting someone turn down paid work or a chance at paid work, in order to continue doing volunteer tasks. That prolongs unemployment.

I'm going to assume museums and the like do make use of their volunteer work. It's only an assumption since i have no direct experience working in them, but from friends that have (had to, in order to have a chance at getting a job in then) volunteered at aquariums and art galleries, i've been told that life isn't a walk in the park. They don't just sit around, they do as much work as anyone would at poundland.

Shpongled:
All of that is besides the point that we're paying her JSA either way, so i'd much rather my taxes went to museum work than poundland. Poundland can afford to hire their own staff, museums often can't, poundland provides nothing to society other than tacky products for cheap, museums provide culture and a whole lot more.

It doesn't necessarily have to be in that form, but Poundland is losing money training and guiding such jobseekers, and loses money on lower productivity they'll show. The compensation (which keeps companies cooperating with such a scheme, because they wouldn't if they lost money on it) is that their wages are lower to the point of covering travel expenses.

There's really no constructive way to disagree with that arrangement unless it includes a cost estimate on what they lose to taking part in JSA schemes.

Erm, what reason do we have to believe that Poundland are LOSING money by taking on free labour? Training and "guidandce" (lol) take all of 10 minutes for those jobs, and they aren't losing ANY money on lower productivity workers because they aren't even PAYING the lower productivity workers. If they're losing money because their free labour isn't good enough then that to me seems like a damn clear sign that they need to be hiring some full-time workers, training them and paying them a full-time wage like every other goddamn business in the country.

Shpongled:
And it's also beside's the fact that there's nothing stopping the Government from just giving her part-time work at poundland, allowing her to continue her volunteering AS WELL AS giving her something to fill the gaps in her resume.

Why on earth would volunteering be more important than work? Someone who believes that can simple refuse, lose JSA and live off the minimum of benefits.

But you can't eat your cake and have it. It's a job seekers allowance. Someone who doesn't seek a job shouldn't have it. It's not an unlimited-free-money scheme, nor is the government obligated to provide a job to anyone with even the craziest standards. That's not how it works.

As i said, volunteering is not necessarily MORE important than work, but if you're wanting work in a tertiary industry place like a museum (art galleries and aquariums and the like) then extensive volunteering work in them is REQUIRED as pretty much a baseline. The best candidates for jobs WILL have lots of volunteer experience, they will also have minimal gaps in their CV, so they probably had to work at least part-time.

See, forcing someone to work a full-time job and then paying them less than they would get for a part-time job is NOT going to help them get in a job where they want because now they're working full time, earning LESS than they would be with a part-time job, and now have no chance to get the volunteer experience they NEED.

No the Government isn't obligated to provide a job, so why the fuck are they doing it anyway? Contradiction much? Yes, JSA is for people seeking a job, you're assuming she wasn't seeking a job whilst volunteering. Considering she now has a job part-time suggests she was looking for a job. There's nothing wrong with looking for a job AND volunteering at the same time, there is enough hours in the day for that. There isn't enough hours in the day to work a full-time job for ~1 an hour and still volunteer.

Shivarage:

GonvilleBromhead:
*snip*

God help us if you're the example of an employable person.

Yes, because my views on the misuse of the word "slavery" is really important factor for most employees. [/sarcasm]

If you are going to make an ad hominem attack, at least have the intelligence to make one that makes some semblence of sense. Calling me a "giant pee pee head" would have been an improvement.

Shpongled:
Erm, what reason do we have to believe that Poundland are LOSING money by taking on free labour?

Because they have to take those people in, instruct them, motivate them, probably see a lower labour productivity from them, hire a group known to be less stable, less produtctive, less skilled, less motivated etc and have a higher staff turnover rate. All of that is disadvantageous, so you need an incentive for them to participate in jobs for longterm unemployed.

Shpongled:
and they aren't losing ANY money on lower productivity workers because they aren't even PAYING the lower productivity workers.

That's rubbish. Labour productivity is how much gets done per person per hour. Payment has nothing to do with it.

Shpongled:
As i said, volunteering is not necessarily MORE important than work, but if you're wanting work in a tertiary industry place like a museum (art galleries and aquariums and the like) then extensive volunteering work in them is REQUIRED as pretty much a baseline.

Uhm, nope. Pretty much anything that's relevant gets done either commercially, or on the basis of volunteers who don't need to claim benefits.

Shpongled:
See, forcing someone to work a full-time job and then paying them less than they would get for a part-time job is NOT going to help them get in a job where they want because now they're working full time, earning LESS than they would be with a part-time job, and now have no chance to get the volunteer experience they NEED.

And if they don't want fulltime employment, they're free to cancel their JSA and not be obligated to take part in such a scheme.

But if you've been unemployed for years, you really don't get the luxury of picking your work hours.

Again: Can't eat your cake and have it. Either you take what you can get, or you don't get benefits because you're not trying everything you can.

Shpongled:
No the Government isn't obligated to provide a job, so why the fuck are they doing it anyway?

Because experience has shown that longterm unemployed people get a job sooner if placed in such work schemes.

So forcing people who refuse to get work because it's not good enough for them and instead live off social assistance is slavery? no, kidnapping someone and locking them in a basement in chains and forcing them to work or have sex is slavery. I think you are simply warping words to suit your meaning.

If you can't provide for yourself, get a flipping job no matter what it is to pay the bills like any normal person. Saying that this is slavery is like saying slapping someone is murder.

And if they don't want fulltime employment, they're free to cancel their JSA and not be obligated to take part in such a scheme.

They aren't free to cancel JSA as then they wouldn't have money for food and would probably have to break the law in order to meet their basic needs.

If you can't provide for yourself

But what if the state is hindering your ability to provide for yourself.

Blablahb:
And what exactly are the benefits of such a volunteer task towards an employer? Because I see none that they can be certain of, while as I explained, there are things they can be certain of when someone's worked in a store.

A curator looks after a museum's collection, they are responsible for selecting, cataloging, (often) maintaining and assisting in the study of the objects contained therein. Considering the objects on display are generally only a fraction of those kept by the average museum, this is quite an demanding task. More importantly, it requires huge knowledge, often about very arcane and unorthodox subjects.

It can take pretty much an entire lifetime to genuinely master those skills, it's certainly of a similar order of magnitude to going fully into academia.

It might not be obvious to the average visitor, but a museum actually has many functions beyond public education and entertainment. Museums have a very important role in research, archaeology and conservation, and a curator needs to be able to assist in that too.

You cannot just walk into a museum and apply to be a curator. They don't give a shit if you've worked really hard in retail and are trustworthy. If you don't have specialist knowledge and experience gained from actually doing that job, you can't do that job. The only way to get a foot in the door is to work unpaid as a volunteer, probably for several years.

Yeah, guess what my holiday job was.

evilthecat:
Yeah, guess what my holiday job was.

Exotic dancer?

Shpongled:

the clockmaker:
See this is the sort of attitude that leads to people being unwilling to take 'shitty' jobs, an arrogance about a career path that has no notion of providing her with paying employment for the next few years, an assumption that someone simply being at a museum is contributing more to society than someone doing a 'shitty' job and the belief that culture and history stem from museums as opposed to being recorded by them.

That's not my point at all. If it were poundland or the museum paying her wages it wouldn't make a difference, because a job is a job and everyone needs money to get by. But in this case it's ME paying her wages through taxes, and given the option of paying to support a museum or paying to support poundland with my taxes, i'd take the museum any day of the week.

You are paying 1 twenty five millionth of her wages. And if you want to go round the 'its my taxes' route here are some other things that people have used for that in the past
-My taxes pay for health services and I don't want abortions included
-My wages pay for police and I don't want them to limit my speed etc etc.

I pay taxes and I would rather she get real world, ground floor experience than pine in a specific field that has very little chance of providing her with a career.

I don't know what that last sentence is about, obviously history doesn't stem from museums but there's no arguing museums are culturally important buildings. You could perhaps argue less so in todays modern age of the internet but i digress.

You said that they provide culture and history, I disagree, culture and history come from a society, not from the organisations that record it.

Also, her current holding of a position in a supermarket, due to the very slight interview and application process, does not indicate that she was previously genuinely seeking employment in that stream. I mean, it is not like she has suddenly been made partner in a law firm.

On the original topic is there anyone still seriously arguing that this is slavery.

This is pretty explicitly a breach of human rights:

Article 23 of the UDHR.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

It might not hold up in the ECHR, because the European Convention isn't so specifically worded, but as far as the Universal Declaration goes, it's pretty clear.

people are complaining about this?

we should be grateful our conservative betters give us the oppertunity to work for below minimum wage for mulitmillion pound/dollar organisations

remember we need these austerity measures so we dont lose our AAA credit rating....
/SARCASM

FreedomofInformation:
They aren't free to cancel JSA as then they wouldn't have money for food and would probably have to break the law in order to meet their basic needs.

Well, that would be the cost of maintaining impossible standards then don't you think? It's still a free choice to either stick to those standards or find a job though.

FreedomofInformation:
But what if the state is hindering your ability to provide for yourself.

That's not the case and therefore offtopic.

DJjaffacake:
This is pretty explicitly a breach of human rights:
Article 23 of the UDHR.

Totally wrong. You still have free choice of employment. You can at any time of your choosing find a different job, or refuse the job and the JSA. It's not a compulsory scheme.

That article was also one of the grounds on which that Dutch legallly schooled guy tried to appeal his work scheme and he lost. The EU court wouldn't even hear the case, meaning there's no doubt they found that grounds to be ridiculous.

Blablahb:
Totally wrong. You still have free choice of employment. You can at any time of your choosing find a different job, or refuse the job and the JSA. It's not a compulsory scheme.

That article was also one of the grounds on which that Dutch legallly schooled guy tried to appeal his work scheme and he lost. The EU court wouldn't even hear the case, meaning there's no doubt they found that grounds to be ridiculous.

It's not free choice if taking one choice means you lose a significant source of income.

I'm not surprised the ECHR ruled against the Dutch guy, Article 23 isn't in the Convention, which is what they base their rulings on. It is however, in the Universal Declaration.

DJjaffacake:
It's not free choice if taking one choice means you lose a significant source of income.

But it is. It's just that the wrong choice has consequences. This is justified by two things:
-Being longterm unemployed without prospects at work is not a good thing no matter how it's looked at
-The government is already paying for that person, has for a long time, and is thus entitled to suggesting ways to resolve that problem, like for instance offering them things that give a better chance at work

Also you were citing a right of employment. The whole deal with the JSA scheme is that the people who get offered a job as part of that, don't have employment.

It's about as relevant as citing human right to live when someone kills mosquitos.

DJjaffacake:
I'm not surprised the ECHR ruled against the Dutch guy, Article 23 isn't in the Convention, which is what they base their rulings on. It is however, in the Universal Declaration.

They didn't rule against him, they refused to even hear the case. While if they thought his human rights were being violated, or even thought that might be the case, they would've heard him.

While the guy was quite thorough in his case. Every right and supposed right that we've seen here, he argued. But he lost and lost and lost, because there's nothing wrong with enrolling longterm unemployed people into employment schemes to give their life structure, and maybe teach them a thing or two while they work, which gets them better odds of finding work.

DJjaffacake:

It's not free choice if taking one choice means you lose a significant source of income.

A "free choice" does not guarantee you income. At any moment she can leave that job but will lose the corresponding income that is tied to her working that job. It is no different than if a banker decides to quit his job to become a street performer. It is his choice to do so even if he loses the large income he made as a banker.

Nielas:

DJjaffacake:

It's not free choice if taking one choice means you lose a significant source of income.

A "free choice" does not guarantee you income. At any moment she can leave that job but will lose the corresponding income that is tied to her working that job. It is no different than if a banker decides to quit his job to become a street performer. It is his choice to do so even if he loses the large income he made as a banker.

A banker has no reason not to be a banker unless being a street performer is a lifelong ambition for him. This person had every reason to stay in her volunteer job.

DJjaffacake:

Nielas:

DJjaffacake:

It's not free choice if taking one choice means you lose a significant source of income.

A "free choice" does not guarantee you income. At any moment she can leave that job but will lose the corresponding income that is tied to her working that job. It is no different than if a banker decides to quit his job to become a street performer. It is his choice to do so even if he loses the large income he made as a banker.

A banker has no reason not to be a banker unless being a street performer is a lifelong ambition for him. This person had every reason to stay in her volunteer job.

Obviously, she die not have "every reason" since she went to do the other job in exchange for money. She was free to stay in the volunteer job if she chose not to take the government money. It is not different than the banker choosing to stay in his banking job because he does not want to lose his banking income.

the clockmaker:
On the original topic is there anyone still seriously arguing that this is slavery.

I'm quite surprised that the thread has gone down the "starving a person because of circumstances beyond their control is perfectly fine" route

is very sad that some people can be so petty...

Yes, plenty have argued it is slavery but have long since realised that the opposition are those who profit (and make their living) from said slavery so will fight to the death to defend it

Shivarage:

the clockmaker:
On the original topic is there anyone still seriously arguing that this is slavery.

I'm quite surprised that the thread has gone down the "starving a person because of circumstances beyond their control is perfectly fine" route

is very sad that some people can be so petty...

Yes, plenty have argued it is slavery but have long since realised that the opposition are those who profit (and make their living) from said slavery so will fight to the death to defend it

They are not saying starve her, they are saying don't give her money so she can do nothing.

refusing to give something, or stopping giving something is not the same as taking it away. Not Supporting someone in their poor life choices is not the same as starving them. She didn't get a career in the museum, that is beyond her control, true. What she needs to do is suck it up and find work to support herself, not sit there on JSA doing something that might one day get her considered for an interview for a job that may come up years down the line.

And I don't see anything in there that actually shows this is slavery.

Shivarage:
I'm quite surprised that the thread has gone down the "starving a person because of circumstances beyond their control is perfectly fine" route

I'm more of the line "If someone chooses to starve themselves by insisting on permanent unemployment and resists efforts to help them to a job, we should respect their wishes".

the clockmaker:
They are not saying starve her, they are saying don't give her money so she can do nothing.

But she's not the one making a profit, is she?

again, this is exactly what I meant by "realising the opposition profit (and make a living) from said slavery", you're purposefully leaving out the fact that poundland is a private business that has no right to free labour, explain why poundland should get money for doing nothing!

Blablahb:
*snip*

I see you had to give up ambitions in the past and don't want anyone else to succeed, I feel sorry for you...

Shivarage:

the clockmaker:
They are not saying starve her, they are saying don't give her money so she can do nothing.

But she's not the one making a profit, is she?

again, this is exactly what I meant by "realising the opposition profit (and make a living) from said slavery", you're purposefully leaving out the fact that poundland is a private business that has no right to free labour, explain why poundland should get money for doing nothing!

First off, actually show that this is slavery or stop fucking calling it slavery don't just quote literally the first line of my post and ignore the rest.

Secondly, what the buisness in question is doing is providing training to people with no expectation of retention. That is an incredibly unsound fiscal policy and one that they would not be ding were it not for the financial incentives offered them. Spread across large numbers of long term unemployed, the cost of training and monitoring these people would lead to only a very small (relatively) profit for the company, much less than had they just hired them in the first place.

Shivarage:

Blablahb:
*snip*

I see you had to give up ambitions in the past and don't want anyone else to succeed, I feel sorry for you...

Nicely done mate, you've only been in thread for a few posts and you've already graduated to personal attacks.

It is good to have dreams, but always remember that they are your dreams, don't fucking burden other people with them. You fuck up at plan A, go to plan B, don't go looking, cap in hand, for some plan A assistance program.

And I bet that if he had succeeded you would be coming out with 'you got yours and don't want others to climb up there with you.'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked