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
 

the clockmaker:

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.

Okay, I'll show that it's slavery in 2 questions

Is the person doing the work being paid by the beneficiary?

Did said worker have a choice?

if both answers are "no" then it is slavery, especially if declining said labour results in having your only surviving money taken away, back in the 60's all you had to do to claim the dole/jobseekers was show up and say you need it and there you go, free money to live on and back then it had decent buying power and didn't cause a depression, today it is peanuts!

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.

I'm sure you're aware that there was no skill shortage in the first place, the problem is there aren't enough jobs to go around because poundland and others just aren't willing to pay despite being highly profitable (or is this slavery the whole reason they are profitable? in this case it would be poundland's bad business plan at fault)

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.'

No, I wouldn't care if it was the richest man on the planet, I'd still feel sorry for someone with that attitude, if that path (or even less) worked for every other curator then who gave you the right to tell her she's wrong?

Shivarage:

Okay, I'll show that it's slavery in 2 questions

Is the person doing the work being paid by the beneficiary?

neither is the fucker at the red cross, it is not the same thing but it shows the irrelevance of the question.

In-a-fucking-dition, I have done contract work in the past, I have done disaster relief I have worked in the emergency services, in all of those cases, the beneficiary was not the one paying me.

Did said worker have a choice?

Yes, take up whatever employment they could get. Note that soon after taking part in the scheme, the person in question had other employment.

Also, on contract work, if I said no, I would have lost my job and by your insanely one on one version of life starved to death.

if both answers are "no" then it is slavery,

so its not then. Or by your logic I was a slave. And it is still a fucking insult to those that still suffer actual slavery every day.
'No, I'm sorry mister Irawan, I know that you were beaten, starved (as in locked in a fucking box and denied fucking food) sexually abused and denied access to family and friends, but you seem we have expanded the nature of slaveryt to cover people who have to suffer stacking shelves for a few hours a day if they want to avoid doing a 'shitty' job.

especially if declining said labour results in having your only surviving money taken away, back in the 60's all you had to do to claim the dole/job seekers was show up and say you need it and there you go, free money to live on and back then it had decent buying power and didn't cause a depression, today it is peanuts!

Because there is no fucking way that taking people at there word when free fucking money is involved is going to be rorted.

I grew up in a dole town mate, I have mates who are second and third generation dole bludgers, because that is where that system leads. Maybe we could afford that bullshit when the economy was prospering, but it ain't now.

I'm sure you're aware that there was no skill shortage in the first place, the problem is there aren't enough jobs to go around because poundland and others just aren't willing to pay despite being highly profitable (or is this slavery the whole reason they are profitable? in this case it would be poundland's bad business plan at fault)

I am honestly trying to get through the sheer fucking rage at the myopic arrogance at calling this shit slavery to respond to you. It is quite the effort.

No, skills like stacking shit are not in shortage, what is in shortage is a willingness to fucking do jobs that are 'beneath' people. We raised a fucking generation of people who were told 'go to uni or you'll be flipping burgers for life' and then they got it into their heads that flipping burgers is a bad thing.

What people are supposed to be learning in shit like this is not how to stack shit, I have faith that we all already know that. What people are supposed to be learning is how to show up on time, stay until released, be polite to the customers and keep professional. They are learning to do this in a job where they get no respect because if they hold out for one where they will, they will be, say it with me now, 'long term unemployed'.

Sometimes, work is shit. and people have trouble dealing with that.

No, I wouldn't care if it was the richest man on the planet, I'd still feel sorry for someone with that attitude, if that path (or even less) worked for every other curator then who gave you the right to tell her she's wrong?

No, she can pursue that dream, but it ain't the fucking job of society to support her in that. By all means, hold out, but support yourself in the fucking meantime.

If she is disabled and cannot work, I am fucking happy for society to pay for her, I will bend over fucking backwards to get her what she needs.

If she is psychologically injured and needs time to go through treatment while society carries her, I will happily take a pay cut to bring more money for her aid.

If she has worked a long and productive life and is retired, she deserves to rest out her sunset years (though personally I cannot imagine life without work)

If she is taking all her time pursuing her ideal career to the detriment of her financial safety, she can fill her boots, but it is not societies job to carry her.

Not really here to debate, but way to set up a loaded question.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

the clockmaker:
neither is the fucker at the red cross, it is not the same thing but it shows the irrelevance of the question.

In-a-fucking-dition, I have done contract work in the past, I have done disaster relief I have worked in the emergency services, in all of those cases, the beneficiary was not the one paying me.

Yes, take up whatever employment they could get. Note that soon after taking part in the scheme, the person in question had other employment.

Also, on contract work, if I said no, I would have lost my job and by your insanely one on one version of life starved to death.

firstly, those 2 questions go together, not singularly - you had a choice so no it was not slavery, the girl in my OP was not being paid by the beneficiary and did not have a choice

secondly this is not about you, you grew up during the good times when all you had to do was walk in the door and you were given a job

so its not then. Or by your logic I was a slave. And it is still a fucking insult to those that still suffer actual slavery every day.
'No, I'm sorry mister Irawan, I know that you were beaten, starved (as in locked in a fucking box and denied fucking food) sexually abused and denied access to family and friends, but you seem we have expanded the nature of slaveryt to cover people who have to suffer stacking shelves for a few hours a day if they want to avoid doing a 'shitty' job.

misinterpreting my logic and then blowing it out of proportion... aren't you happy that society is willing to fight for your freedom?

millions died in a certain war to prevent a certain tyrant from taking away our human rights and you will gladly throw those rights away because "it could be worse..."
I can tell you this much, the government will ARREST you if you miss even one tax payment as to prevent you from making a habit or taking it further, you try telling them "it could be worse" and you'll be in prison before you can say "calm down"
My point is if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile and I am proud that the girl in my OP fought against evil attempting to gain that inch, they failed this time and they MUST fail every time!!!

Because there is no fucking way that taking people at there word when free fucking money is involved is going to be rorted.

very cynical there... but you're very trusting of Mr Poundland, aren't you?
a private business SURELY has no interest in making a dishonest profit does it?

I grew up in a dole town mate, I have mates who are second and third generation dole bludgers, because that is where that system leads. Maybe we could afford that bullshit when the economy was prospering, but it ain't now.

so your solution to the problem they did not cause is to starve them... well done, just be happy it's them on the dole or else it would have been you (one man cannot be rich without another being poor)
This solution will ultimately destroy millions of jobs because those people living on the dole are the sole consumer base of local fast food, retailers and businesses that rich people own - without the consumer base = no business = no jobs

I am honestly trying to get through the sheer fucking rage at the myopic arrogance at calling this shit slavery to respond to you. It is quite the effort.

No, skills like stacking shit are not in shortage, what is in shortage is a willingness to fucking do jobs that are 'beneath' people. We raised a fucking generation of people who were told 'go to uni or you'll be flipping burgers for life' and then they got it into their heads that flipping burgers is a bad thing.

What people are supposed to be learning in shit like this is not how to stack shit, I have faith that we all already know that. What people are supposed to be learning is how to show up on time, stay until released, be polite to the customers and keep professional. They are learning to do this in a job where they get no respect because if they hold out for one where they will, they will be, say it with me now, 'long term unemployed'.

Sometimes, work is shit. and people have trouble dealing with that.

That's funny, none of my local fast food shops are advertising jobs (nor any other business) in fact they are cutting staff all over the country and there's already millions of unemployed so there's clearly no shortage of people who will do those jobs
You do realize that giving people skills doesn't create any jobs... what creates a job is having a specific skill that another person is willing to pay for - giving every single person these skills simply makes what few jobs require those few skills worth even less, thus the minimum wage law became necessary

No, she can pursue that dream, but it ain't the fucking job of society to support her in that. By all means, hold out, but support yourself in the fucking meantime.

If she is disabled and cannot work, I am fucking happy for society to pay for her, I will bend over fucking backwards to get her what she needs.

If she is psychologically injured and needs time to go through treatment while society carries her, I will happily take a pay cut to bring more money for her aid.

If she has worked a long and productive life and is retired, she deserves to rest out her sunset years (though personally I cannot imagine life without work)

If she is taking all her time pursuing her ideal career to the detriment of her financial safety, she can fill her boots, but it is not societies job to carry her.

The benefit is clearly labelled "job seekers allowance" she was indeed looking for a job, there was no cheating or anything, here's an idea - how about all those multimillionaires in parliament who voted or abstained in the tuition fee vote pay 9k per year for the free university education they received courtesy of the taxpayer, does that sound good to you or are you only against poor people/people lower than yourself receiving financial help?

Shivarage:

firstly, those 2 questions go together, not singularly - you had a choice so no it was not slavery, the girl in my OP was not being paid by the beneficiary and did not have a choice

I had the choice of not going to work, losing my job and losing my sole source of income. She had the same choice.

secondly this is not about you, you grew up during the good times when all you had to do was walk in the door and you were given a job

She-24, Me-21, you-making daft assumptions. I mean, what was your thought process on this one.

ANd get stuffed for thinking that I just walked into my fucking jobs. I worked, I worked to be allowed to work.

misinterpreting my logic and then blowing it out of proportion... aren't you happy that society is willing to fight for your freedom?

millions died in a certain war to prevent a certain tyrant from taking away our human rights and you will gladly throw those rights away because "it could be worse..."

1- I am in uniformed defence service, so I am standing with society in defending rights.
2-Godwin.
3- You are fucking putting a long term unemployed person to stacking shelves while being paid by the government in the same box as people who are raped, beaten, starved and sold like pieces of fucking meat.
4-Living on free money without the obligation to work until something you like comes along is not a human right.
5-Seriously, now you are comparing the thing to the MOTHERFUCKING Holocaust? This hyperbolic myopic arrogant bullshit is exactly why I can't take the 'anti-corporate movement' seriously, you people are so fucking desperate to seem oppressed that you tack your fucking wagon to those who actually suffer.

I can tell you this much, the government will ARREST you if you miss even one tax payment as to prevent you from making a habit or taking it further, you try telling them "it could be worse" and you'll be in prison before you can say "calm down"

I missed a tax payment, the government called and said,'mate, you need to pay this shit' they did not throw me in fucking prison and won't unless you shout 'you may take my life, but you will never take part of my money.' like the most self entitled william wallace of all time.

And I have called a minister of the government a tool to his face, they did not arrest me for saying it.

My point is if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile and I am proud that the girl in my OP fought against evil attempting to gain that inch, they failed this time and they MUST fail every time!!!

You fucking know that there is actually fucking evil in this world right, and you are putting your bullshit fucking right to wait for a job that you fucking like up there with the white fucking rose movement. Shit like this degrades the meaning of struggle.

very cynical there... but you're very trusting of Mr Poundland, aren't you?
a private business SURELY has no interest in making a dishonest profit does it?

I grew up in a town with mate, I said that just before. I have first fucking hand experience with this shit. And explain how Poundland is going to rort the system outside of what is stated. come on son, go for it.

so your solution to the problem they did not cause is to starve them...

No, my solution is to push them towards work. Work that a lot of people think is beneath them.

well done, just be happy it's them on the dole or else it would have been you (one man cannot be rich without another being poor)

Assuming that I am rich (more on that later), but hey, a lot of the fuckers that I know on the dole are on the dole by fucking choice and also I fucking hate the bullshit assumption that I only got the job because no one else did, I got the job because I was the best fucker for it.

This solution will ultimately destroy millions of jobs because those people living on the dole are the sole consumer base of local fast food, retailers and businesses that rich people own - without the consumer base = no business = no jobs

Bull-fucking-shit. I eat fast food. Every fucker that I live and work with eats fast food. And You have divided the world into 'rich' and 'dole'

really, is that the best you can come up with.

That's funny, none of my local fast food shops are advertising jobs (nor any other business) in fact they are cutting staff all over the country and there's already millions of unemployed so there's clearly no shortage of people who will do those jobs
You do realize that giving people skills doesn't create any jobs... what creates a job is having a specific skill that another person is willing to pay for

never been a problem for me, I have shown work ethic and willingness to learn, that has got me through most shit. And just because a place ain't advertising doesn't mean it isn't hiring.

The benefit is clearly labelled "job seekers allowance" she was indeed looking for a job,

A potential specific job years down the line.

there was no cheating or anything, here's an idea - how about all those multimillionaires in parliament who voted or abstained in the tuition fee vote pay 9k per year for the free university education they received courtesy of the taxpayer,

Yeah, sure, willingly only though, because you start seizing shit en mass, it is hard to stop.

does that sound good to you or are you only against poor people/people lower than yourself receiving financial help?

Mate, when I was young, we were always a few days off the power going out and the rent being beyond retrievable. We searched for small change behind the couch so the water wouldn't be turned off. My parents skipped meals so us kids could eat. We had a picture of a Christmas tree because we couldn't afford the real thing. Don't call me rich or act like I am some fucking lordly high up judging to paupers.

And did you not read that if she can sincerely not work, I am happy to help support her.

Really, the sheer amount of ignorance, arrogance and self-absorbtion in your post is astounding.

the clockmaker:

Shivarage:
here's an idea - how about all those multimillionaires in parliament who voted or abstained in the tuition fee vote pay 9k per year for the free university education they received courtesy of the taxpayer,

[quote] Yeah, sure, willingly only though, because you start seizing shit en mass, it is hard to stop.

I knew this would catch you out, once private businesses trade in slaves in mass numbers purely for profiteering, that's incredibly difficult to stop so we HAVE to fight them

how difficult your life was is actually relevant, you don't want a better, civilised society - you want others simply to suffer because you will always believe you had it worse

Sorry to burst your bubble but here in the 21st century, we want society to advance and become easier for all, not just the rich few whom you wish to be part of

btw, I know I know better than you because I'm older, I've seen the results of people who had your delusioned attitude and trust me... they are not good (don't you be thinking I'm not aware of how you "earned" jobs over others, I know how the recruitment process works inside and out as I am an employer myself)

the clockmaker:
*snip*

You didn't respond to a thing I said :/

Did you even read my post?

You say human beings shouldn't receive money to get by in life (if they are poor) but you also say other mere human beings have every right to get free money (definition of hypocrisy) because... (those others are rich)

I don't see the difference between these people and it is incredibly elitist and disgusting that you do.

Shivarage:

the clockmaker:
*snip*

You didn't respond to a thing I said :/

Did you even read my post?

You say human beings shouldn't receive money to get by in life (if they are poor) but you also say other mere human beings have every right to get free money (definition of hypocrisy) because... (those others are rich)

I don't see the difference between these people and it is incredibly elitist and disgusting that you do.

You take a single line out of my post an then have the nerve to accuse me of not responding to you (when I actually did) and then just make up my position because if you can't beat what I am actually saying, you might as well pretend I said something else.

You ignored where I showed that slavery was not taking place, actually, fuck it I am not going through all this, you ignore every fucking thing that I said and sweetheart, when you do that, you don't get to complain if others do the same to you. Although

You said that A- I grew up in the 'good times' (false) and that I could never understand the plight of the new generation and then you said B-That you knew better because you were older than me. I pointed out that hypocrisy.

You said that I wished to be one of the 'rich' and I pointed out (using sarcasm) that it was wrong to assume that my life intentions.

You said that I wanted everyone to suffer because, essentially, I am a bitter cunt, and I pointed out that you are essentially making up my life perspective.

You said that this is a slave trade and that we HAVE to fight them, and I pointed out that I had responded to this bullshit previously and you ignored my response entirely.

So there we go, I responded to everything you posted while you were ignoring my post to attack one line. Well done for lying and stalling the discussion to avoid admitting that you were wrong about a lot of the above.

And to respond to the new nonsense that you have thrown up that some disgusting furball, not giving someone something does not equal taking away something that they have. If I have five dollars and you have three dollars, and I don't give you my five dollars, it is not the same thing as me taking your three dollars.

the clockmaker:
*snip*

Everything you say holds no weight as long as you are biased toward "the rich"
Clearly we aren't going to agree because of this

You say it's not slavery because the girl was getting "paid" by the taxpayer to make profit for a private company or else she has to go without the tiny bit of money, I'll reply that her full time labour should be properly remunerated like anybody else but nope, according to you Mr Poundland has a right to free money and not her

You will never, no matter how much it is explained to you that he is getting free money for doing nothing, understand that Mr Poundland is the true scrounger so there's no point in continuing

I can already predict your reply
"you're fucking bullshitting that taking someone away from their life path and forcing them to work full time labour for no pay, thus making the private businessman very wealthy on her back, is slavery!!!"

Shivarage:

the clockmaker:
*snip*

Everything you say holds no weight as long as you are biased toward "the rich"
Clearly we aren't going to agree because of this

You say it's not slavery because the girl was getting "paid" by the taxpayer to make profit for a private company or else she has to go without the tiny bit of money, I'll reply that her full time labour should be properly remunerated like anybody else but nope, according to you Mr Poundland has a right to free money and not her

You will never, no matter how much it is explained to you that he is getting free money for doing nothing, understand that Mr Poundland is the true scrounger so there's no point in continuing

I can already predict your reply
"you're fucking bullshitting that taking someone away from their life path and forcing them to work full time labour for no pay, thus making the private businessman very wealthy on her back, is slavery!!!"

That's right, just keep on ignoring everything I said, we can't risk the house of cards that props up your daft views by actually thinking now can we.

Either actually respond to what I said, admit that you are wrong or sod off.

the clockmaker:
*snip

You received a warning for not controlling yourself... Just calm down

We're not getting anywhere because you just refuse to budge and you're not here to learn anything

In the end if you believe that it is possible that full population employment is possible then go ahead, I'm not going to stop you, if you really think a life on benefits is a good one then you can also go ahead and give up your job because if you're right then you'll thank me for it and you will also give someone else a job (obviously you won't do this because life on benefits is nowhere near as good)

It was mostly nice talking to you :) you're still young and idealistic so I don't blame you for being so rude and aggressive, best of luck since unfortunately everyone grows old but not necessarily the wiser for it

Shivarage:

the clockmaker:
*snip

You received a warning for not controlling yourself... Just calm down

We're not getting anywhere because you just refuse to budge and you're not here to learn anything

In the end if you believe that it is possible that full population employment is possible then go ahead, I'm not going to stop you, if you really think a life on benefits is a good one then you can also go ahead and give up your job because if you're right then you'll thank me for it and you will also give someone else a job (obviously you won't do this because life on benefits is nowhere near as good)

It was mostly nice talking to you :) you're still young and idealistic so I don't blame you for being so rude and aggressive, best of luck since unfortunately everyone grows old but not necessarily the wiser for it

No it was for excessive vulgarity, me not controlling myself would have been insulting you personally, which did not occur and if it had, would have been mentioned in the post.

Your hypocrisy is still showing in that you treated me as unable to understand this generation because I was too old and then claimed to know better than me because you are older. In fact, almost all of your posts have been aimed at me rather than my points, I only wanted to be rich, I was bitter because I was poor, I was too old, I was too young.

I also heartily dislike the arrogance in your post that you are here to 'teach me' I know what it is to be poor, I know what it is to be paid less than minimum wage, I know the dole system and I know employment. I also know what actually slavery is which is one up on you mate. The reason that this has not moved forward at all is because you have tried to take up the position of exalted educator while at the same time talking out of your arse. You godwined a scant few posts in and tried to claim that being given free money to wait for a better job was the right that millions died for in the second world war.

In addition, you constantly claim that someone else can just walk into my job, as if that is all I did, which I take as personal slight. I got my job because I was great at it, and if one of the more than a hundred others who washed out during the application/trainin process for my one position think that my job just defaults to them, they can try again.

and then there is the sickening patronisation in your last paragraph, that oh if only I was as world wise as you I would see the truth, but here is the thing, I am not idealistic, I grew up in the shit, worked in the shit and then spent years sorting out other people's shit. When I was a firefighter I risked my life trying to save houses that were later proven to have been lit as insurance scams, I have made in one month fifteen times my annual salary for the company, and then been refused minimum wage, I have been poor and now that I am slightly less poor you have the gall to act as if I am some pie in the sky, out of touch delusional, daring to call me idealistic while sounding a general call to arms to fight the 'oppression' of the man.

I note that you have abandoned all pretence of defending your points, that the fast food industry would collapse, that this is slavery, that the government will throw you in jail for missing one tax payment or for complaining about taxes, that wealth is zero sum, that this is 'evil' on par with people trafficking and the holocaust and that it will inveitibly lead to sudden nazism in all. All of these and more, dropped just to focus on trying to discredit me personally. Are you that desperate, do you have so little to back up your claims with that you are content to try and pat me on the head and claim 'oh I know better, just.... just trust me on this'. I don't have proof that you are older (not that it makes one whit of a difference, as you told me, that just makes you out of touch) or that you employ anybody and yet without even attempting even anecdotal evidence, you expect me to sit down and shut up because you 'know better' I mean, thank god you aren't ranting against unquestioning obedience to authority or this would be really awkward.

No, I am not going to 'learn' anything off of you because all that you put forward is poisonous nonsense and I would be happy to budge if you could make a competent case for my doing so. Hell, even a coherent and consistant one would be welcomed at this point.

the clockmaker:
*snips*

Your inconsistencies:

You say you first received your job because you are the best at it, how do you know if you only just received it? you do realise that the majority of businesses just hire their friend yes? either that or they simply have a big pile of suitables and just pick one at random yes? there is no earning a job in this lifetime, you're simply given it or are very lucky

Complaining about the use of Godwin but still mention the holocaust

You're against poor people getting free money but not against rich people getting free money, the rich must be doing something right if they can convince poor people to shoot themselves in the foot for the vague chance of becoming one of them

Yep, I'm finished here

Shivarage:

You say you first received your job because you are the best at it, how do you know if you only just received it?

Where did I say that? I have been in this job for years.

you do realise that the majority of businesses just hire their friend yes?

Did you just claim that I got my job because of nepotism? that is fairly insulting.

either that or they simply have a big pile of suitables and just pick one at random yes?

That... That is not how a recruiting process works, and the fact that you think that shows that if you are an employer (which I am beginning to doubt) you must be bad at it

there is no earning a job in this lifetime, you're simply given it or are very lucky

What a poisonous statement, I am not claiming that if you work hard for a few years than you will become bill gates, only that if you work hard for a few years you can get a decent job. You are saying 'may as well never try because skill has no effect on what job you get'

Complaining about the use of Godwin but still mention the holocaust

Calling you on comparing someone to a nazi is not the same as comparing someone to a nazi. Jesus, you think that'd be easy.

You're against poor people getting free money

if they cannot show that they are incapable of working.

but not against rich people getting free money,

I'm against seizing property from the rich, which is clearly not the same thing.

the rich must be doing something right if they can convince poor people to shoot themselves in the foot for the vague chance of becoming one of them

Assuming things about me again. Jesus mate, when was the last time you actually went after one of my points as oppossed to me directly, three posts? Four?

Yep, I'm finished here

Mate, going by the quality of your debate, you never started.

You only qualify for "Day One Support for Young People", the placement scheme, if you have less than 6 months work history split between 2 or fewer employers.

The money from JSA is for essential living expenses, food basically. Just because they never bothered putting any qualifiers on it other than "unemployed" doesn't mean everyone should be entitled to it. The JSA was created for people who really need it; low paid workers who have lost their job or young people who left school without any qualifications or work experience, two typical examples. It is not for the students back from Uni living in their parents house and not paying a single bill or buying any food.

Wrote the post before realising the last page had devolved into a slinging match. Damn it all but it's written now so I'll post it.

the clockmaker:

Shivarage:

You say you first received your job because you are the best at it, how do you know if you only just received it?

Where did I say that? I have been in this job for years.

"you constantly claim that someone else can just walk into my job, as if that is all I did, which I take as personal slight. I got my job because I was great at it"

Look up your own post...

That... That is not how a recruiting process works, and the fact that you think that shows that if you are an employer (which I am beginning to doubt) you must be bad at it

have you noticed just how many businesses went bust due to what you call bad management? what I'm telling is the literal thought process and attitude to recruitment since there are so many thousands of applications for 1 job because we advertise the same job in many different places, we just don't have the time and resources to go through everyone so we go with the safe option - somebody we know or somebody that one of our staff personally recommends, we still have full time jobs and can't waste time or money on "fairness" I'm sorry we don't live in an ideal world

Shivarage:

"you constantly claim that someone else can just walk into my job, as if that is all I did, which I take as personal slight. I got my job because I was great at it"

Look up your own post...

There is no indicator of when I began my job there, only that it occurred in the past.

have you noticed just how many businesses went bust due to what you call bad management? what I'm telling is the literal thought process and attitude to recruitment since there are so many thousands of applications for 1 job because we advertise the same job in many different places, we just don't have the time and resources to go through everyone so we go with the safe option - somebody we know or somebody that one of our staff personally recommends, we still have full time jobs and can't waste time or money on "fairness" I'm sorry we don't live in an ideal world

What field has several thousand applications for one position?

And I take it that you are conceding all of your points that you are ignoring in this post?

the clockmaker:

Shivarage:

"you constantly claim that someone else can just walk into my job, as if that is all I did, which I take as personal slight. I got my job because I was great at it"

Look up your own post...

There is no indicator of when I began my job there, only that it occurred in the past.

Yes there is, you "got your job because you were great at it" means you must have done the job before you got it thus it is impossible that you had proven yourself before simply being given the job

If you didn't have the job, how did you prove you were great at the job without someone simply giving it to you?
Sadly, all those people you "earned" the job over simply didn't have a chance because it was given to you.

You might not want to believe you only have your job because of either a friend on the inside or pure luck but it *definitely* was not earned.

What field has several thousand applications for one position?

All of them, there are several million unemployed and only few hundred jobs these days so how is it hard to believe that one can get thousands of applications?
There are at least 1000 applicants per job (edit: and they don't limit their application to 1)
Remember, only the very rich believe a minimum wage job is beneath them so they throw the insults to deflect attention from the fact they wouldn't even go within 100 meters of a poor person

And I take it that you are conceding all of your points that you are ignoring in this post?

Nope, I am not conceding anything to a person who doesn't even understand the language he is trying to use, this is my final comment only to point your misunderstanding out very plainly so if this didn't reach you then nothing will

Goodbye for good.

Shivarage:

Yes there is, you "got your job because you were great at it" means you must have done the job before you got it thus it is impossible that you had proven yourself before simply being given the job

If you didn't have the job, how did you prove you were great at the job without someone simply giving it to you?
Sadly, all those people you "earned" the job over simply didn't have a chance because it was given to you.

You might not want to believe you only have your job because of either a friend on the inside or pure luck but it *definitely* was not earned.

Or, you know, they do a testing and aptitude process, one that takes months. you know, like a competent employer. I am starting to think that you are either the shift manager at a fast food restaurant or not an employer at all. And seriously, I know that for someone with a terrible work ethic this might be hard to understand, but it is incredibly bloody insulting to act like I stole the job through nepotism or luck.

All of them, there are several million unemployed and only few hundred jobs these days so how is it hard to believe that one can get thousands of applications?

Yes, due to suitability of work, dissemination of information, qualification of applicants, locality of work, compatibility of lifestyle etc etc, I call shenanigans on one position having a thousand applicants. One company maybe, but not one position.

Remember, only the very rich believe a minimum wage job is beneath them so they throw the insults to deflect attention from the fact they wouldn't even go within 100 meters of a poor person

As someone who is not rich, I am calling you on your bullshit again. I have done this before, but you seem happy to ignore anything that doesn't fit into your nonsense.

Nope, I am not conceding anything to a person who doesn't even understand the language he is trying to use, this is my final comment only to point your misunderstanding out very plainly so if this didn't reach you then nothing will

Goodbye for good.

You have failed to defend even a single one of your points, choosing instead to accuse me of nepotism and youthful folly and ignoring that your 'points' have more holes than the Iraqi navy. You were arrogant about my age for me being too old (despite not knowing my age) and then too young (despite being two years older than me.) again, note that not a single one of your points not directed at personally going after me has made it this far.

If you want to leave, leave, but don't think that you can shout some 'gotcha' nonsense over your shoulder and run without it being disproved (again.)

It's a pity that the standard of debate on this subject fell so low.

The "sector-based work academies are unfair/ unethical" side of the debate (which I consider myself to be on) was not represented as a whole by Shivarage. I do not make those assumptions about anybody.

the clockmaker:
snip

Okay, let's try and salvage this.

Judging by your argument, you seem to be misinformed as to some of the specifics of this case.

1) The woman in question was looking for other work at the time.

2) She now works (in a paid capacity) for a supermarket. Her argument had nothing to do with the job being beneath her.

Ian Duncan Smith conveniently chose this moment to make an entirely unrelated point about how "some people" think stacking shelves is beneath them. I wonder why he did so? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that the woman in question is unlikely to get a serious opportunity to publicly counter his comments and that someone who hasn't necessarily been following the case might read his comments and be be predisposed to accept his version of events on face value because they conform to personal prejudices.

Did I ever mention how much I love politics? Basically, this man earns a six figure salary (all taxpayer funded, of course) for his truly admirable service in distorting public opinion and making unsubstantiated accusations against the very members of the public who pay his fucking ridiculous salary.

3) She claims she was not trained or provided with any kind of support during her placement, so unless you're accusing her of lying the idea that Poundland was doing her a favor is kind of out.

Presumptuously assuming that she got her current job due to doing a shitty two week placement which she may or may not have even put on her CV is.. well.. presumptuous. You've assumed a lot of things about this woman when you really have absolutely no evidence, only a person conviction that "some people" don't want to do jobs which are beneath them so obviously she's one of those. After all, Ian Duncan Smith heavily implied she was.

Also, on an argumentative level, your point about the value of work would be infinitely enhanced if you weren't apparently willing to accuse someone of managing a fast food restaurant as if that's some kind of insult.. after all, no job is beneath you, right? Or are you under the impression that having "paid your dues" by working whatever you subjectively consider to be hard you're now entitled to expect to get a particular kind of job?

Because you know, I hear doing a geology degree can be pretty hard.

evilthecat:

Judging by your argument, you seem to be misinformed as to some of the specifics of this case.

1) The woman in question was looking for other work at the time.

from all that I have seen it has been a tokenistic effort. But I will concede that we cannot know all that much about the situation,

2) She now works (in a paid capacity) for a supermarket. Her argument had nothing to do with the job being beneath her.

And I never said that, about her, I do contend that she was waiting for her dream job to come along instead of settling in the interim.

Did I ever mention how much I love politics? Basically, this man earns a six figure salary (all taxpayer funded, of course) for his truly admirable service in distorting public opinion and making unsubstantiated accusations against the very members of the public who pay his fucking ridiculous salary.

This reminds me of a The Thick of it quote
'That's the problem with the public, they're fucking horrible,'
'You can't say that'
'Yes I can, I've met them.

3) She claims she was not trained or provided with any kind of support during her placement, so unless you're accusing her of lying the idea that Poundland was doing her a favor is kind of out.

First off, we have two conflicting stories, so you are calling someone a liar and If she is indeed telling the truth, then that is an implementation and not a conceptional issue.

Presumptuously assuming that she got her current job due to doing a shitty two week placement which she may or may not have even put on her CV is.. well.. presumptuous.

My personal belief is that after the incident occurred, the person in question said 'well shit, they aren't going to bugger off until I have a steady job, and lowered her expectations'

You've assumed a lot of things about this woman when you really have absolutely no evidence, only a person conviction that "some people" don't want to do jobs which are beneath them so obviously she's one of those.

I believe that she was holding out for something better, yes.

After all, Ian Duncan Smith heavily implied she was.

cards on the table, I have no fucking idea who that is, and am kind of confused as to why you are acting like I am basing my opinions off of him. In addition, I note that you make no comment regarding the assumptions leveled at me.

Also, on an argumentative level, your point about the value of work would be infinitely enhanced if you weren't apparently willing to accuse someone of managing a fast food restaurant as if that's some kind of insult..

If you had not come into this while the dust was settling, you could have noted that it was in reference to the other parties repeated claim of being an employer, it was not an insult, but rather an observation that despite their claims, their displayed level of knowledge was closer to someone who tangentally dealt with hiring, but did not actually employ. A key example being the manager of a fast food restaurant. As a comparison, I see no shame in being a cadet, but I take exception when a cadet claims to be a soldier.

after all, no job is beneath you, right?

correct, I will do what I need to do to secure a living wage.

Or are you under the impression that having "paid your dues" by working whatever you subjectively consider to be hard you're now entitled to expect to get a particular kind of job?

I believe that none of us are entitled to anything other than the most basic of safety nets. Were I to lose my job for whatever reason, I would take any job I could to tide me over until I could secure employment that I considered better, because while there is no moral failing in doing a job that some sectors of society look down upon, I do prefer a job that pays more, is comfier and provides me with a greater sense of accomplishment. If I cannot get that, I am not going to bitch about what the world 'owes' me. I got my job because I am very good in this field. I did not get it because I was 'entitled' to it.

Because you know, I hear doing a geology degree can be pretty hard.

As stated, this does not entitle her to a job in her field.

All of this, along with your baffling blind eye to the myriad assumptions made about me by shrivage, are far away from my origonal point that this is not slavery and considering it so is an insult to those that actually suffer it.

Silvanus:
It's a pity that the standard of debate on this subject fell so low on this subject.

The "sector-based work academies are unfair/ unethical" side of the debate (which I consider myself to be on) was not represented as a whole by Shivarage. I do not make those assumptions about anybody.

I will admit that this is not some of my best work, what exactly was I supposed to produce from the 'points' that were being offered up to me

I think the situation can be addressed with a few simple questions:

1 - Should unemployed people on a government benefit be encouraged/forced to engage in a mutual trade off of labour in return for training?

2a - Should private business be allowed to take part of such a scheme?
2b - If 'yes', should there be a limit on how many places they can offer?

3 - Should all places in the scheme be regularly audited to check on the training provided?

the clockmaker:
My personal belief is that after the incident occurred, the person in question said 'well shit, they aren't going to bugger off until I have a steady job, and lowered her expectations'

Evil's point was that the above is an assumption. It seems unreasonable to assume that somebody's playing the system, and on this basis, support the idea of putting her into a full-time job for a fraction of minimum wage.

The point of contention here is benefit of the doubt. You don't give her any, and Evil believes that's not enough reason to pay her in a sub-standard wage.

the clockmaker:
cards on the table, I have no fucking idea who that is, and am kind of confused as to why you are acting like I am basing my opinions off of him. In addition, I note that you make no comment regarding the assumptions leveled at me.

Iain Duncan Smith is work and pensions secretary, and the "Sector-Based Work Academies" are his project. It was he who implied heavily that the woman felt the job was beneath her, when she had stated previously that her only problem was that she wasn't being paid anything near minimum wage for a full-time working week.

the clockmaker:
from all that I have seen it has been a tokenistic effort. But I will concede that we cannot know all that much about the situation,

She found a paying job herself, so it can't have been that tokenistic.

Sector based work academies are not a punishment for not being "serious" enough about finding work. That's not the rationale under which they were introduced, and there's no real cause to claim that everyone who gets assigned to one must be a filthy slacker.

the clockmaker:
And I never said that, about her, I do contend that she was waiting for her dream job to come along instead of settling in the interim.

I've gone over this a few times. She wasn't "waiting for her dream job", she was working towards her dream job in a way which limited her current career prospects in what has actually turned out to be a relatively trivial way. It's really no different from someone only wanting to work part time so they can study, or apply for interships or training in an industry they'd ultimately like to work in, or to have children. You don't have to consider stacking shelves "beneath you" to ultimately want to do something with your life beyond stacking shelves.

It's clear you don't come from a privileged background yourself, would you be comfortable with someone telling you that certain careers should be barred to you because your parents couldn't afford to pay for you to do it? I'd hope you'd be pissed off by that. I'd hope you'd be willing to argue for your right to take reasonable steps towards getting a career you actually want rather than being forced to give up on your ambitions because you didn't happen to be born with enough money to fulfill them.

the clockmaker:
First off, we have two conflicting stories, so you are calling someone a liar and If she is indeed telling the truth, then that is an implementation and not a conceptional issue.

Where's the other story coming from? Because all I see is IDS giving vague, out-of-context references to national success rates with no specific figures and no point of comparison, and if you imagine I'm worried about calling him a liar, think again. "Liar" is the lightest accusation I could possibly think of for that man.

I've already gone over why this whole idea is flawed on the conceptual level, so I'm not going to do it again. Suffice to say, if you're going to introduce your "concept" as law you should consider how it's going to be implemented. If you don't do that, then judges will overturn it on the basis that its implementation is illegal, as has happened here.

If someone's getting paid an enormous sum of taxpayers money to a do a job, my personal feeling (and this is purely a concept I have, mind) is that they should actually demonstrate a level of competence commensurate with the size of their salary.

the clockmaker:
My personal belief is that after the incident occurred, the person in question said 'well shit, they aren't going to bugger off until I have a steady job, and lowered her expectations'

And my personal belief is that this woman was deliberately selected for a scheme which was completely inappropriate for her because she had a reasonable chance of finding a job afterwards and would thus inflate the performance indicators for the scheme. I'd say there's far more basis for that assumption than there is for yours.

There are plenty of young people who genuinely have no experience, no qualifications and very little chance of finding a permanent job. I grew up with many. I still know some of them. I'm related to one. I see absolutely nothing to suggest this woman has any resemblance to those people.

the clockmaker:
cards on the table, I have no fucking idea who that is, and am kind of confused as to why you are acting like I am basing my opinions off of him. In addition, I note that you make no comment regarding the assumptions leveled at me.

As mentioned, he's the "politician" in the title of this thread, the one responsible for introducing this scheme and the one making indirect allegations about people thinking shelf stacking is beneath them.

the clockmaker:
Correct, I will do what I need to do to secure a living wage.

Fair point. I misread you there.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked