You've kind of missed his point there. Money that goes to support benefits claimants and those pesky immigrants is a drop in the ocean compared to what big companies avoid paying in tax.

How?
You seem to be able to tell me about my life and what I do.
The trouble is you don't have a clue about my life in any way whatsoever yet you claim I am part of the problem!
So!!
WHAT PROBLEM?

The point being that in 2008 a calamitous collapse in the world banking system had exactly the same cause and effect as you are suggesting, someone turned off the tap and the world stopped spending money and the world decreed that this was a bad thing and countries all over the world started printing more of their own money and throwing it at banks urging them to lend again, for the truth was, every capitalist system exists purely on easy credit, turn the tap off and the world stops turning.

Take solace in the fact that the VERY poor in society, the ones who draw benefits and are ACTUALLY UNEMPLOYED are in the minority but are so poor that they can't afford accountants to hide their money and instead they have to spend it all in the UK because they can't afford to go abroad, and in doing so, we all get that money back one way or another.

I remember the Yellow savings books in infant school with the larger black TSB that it got transferred into, a proper adults bank book

it was a similar thing I encouraged my own son to do..he bought his first car/paid for half his lessons with the money he saved (which was over a long period of time not me being overly generous)

I've borrowed twice in my life..first was when I needed a car to get to my new job in London in my early 20s because the trains were too expensive (& didn't get me directly to where I needed to be in any case) & then I was lucky enough to buy my own house with a mortgage..
Aside from that I have not, nor will ever buy something unless I have the money for it. If I don't have the money I won't/can't buy it, that's just life. the same principle should apply to everyone..not just those on lower incomes

There are ALWAYS ways to save money, there are ALWAYS ways to live more frugally without 'missing out', why is it people think that they can just go out and get things when they know full well that they can't afford it nor have any intention of paying it back which is theft/fraud.

Vast swathes of people think society owes them, that they are entitled to have X, Y & Z. They don't 'need' these items..it is a want.
I even showed some time back (either here on on the cycling forum I frequent..I forget which) how it is possible to work full time on minimum wage and not just survive but have a life. Not a luxurious life admittedly but still be able to put money away and live 'comfortably'. That is with food on the table and a roof over your head and not worrying about letters coming through your door threatening court because you defaulted on your borrowings.
It reminds me of exactly this time in 2006, I went to a village in W.Yorks, actually on the way up from Hertfordshire to the GF to buy some bicycle wheels (kill 2 birds with one stone). The guys place was small, it was pretty untidy I suppose but surprisingly the chap felt the need to apologise for his abode for some reason. I come from a humble working class background and I'll always be working class despite my postcode & how things turned out. This guy worked, he had his place and ATEOTD he is a human being trying to make his way in life. It was obvious he didn't have much money but we chatted about bikes and his work..I have respect for people like him, in his late 50s, probably never had too many opportunities, probably left school young but he had a job and a roof and seemed happy if not too humble..

Conversely, I have an association with people whom follow their mother and are popping kids out so they can pay for their lifestyle, it's frankly sickening. State benefits are too much of an incentive in [isome[/i cases though rightly are required/needed in many other facets of a civilised society. Sadly our state system is so furked up it isn't true and is open to abuse left right & centre..

When do you suggest we start evicting everyone with a mortgage?

He's a landlord ain't he?
He'd be happy, he could put his rents up ...lol

This argument keeps getting raised by elements of the right-wing media and seems to be swallowed by the gullible.

I don't know of anyone who thought that producing another child would mean an automatic right to a bigger house or more dosh from the magic money tree. Kids need to be fed and clothed and the additional state benefits of having an extra child won't leave much spare cash to fund any lifestyle improvements.

Anyone seriously thinking that could be certifiably insane.

The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted

Quote ="cod'ead"This argument keeps getting raised by elements of the right-wing media and seems to be swallowed by the gullible. I don't know of anyone who thought that producing another child would mean an automatic right to a bigger house or more dosh from the magic money tree. Kids need to be fed and clothed and the additional state benefits of having an extra child won't leave much spare cash to fund any lifestyle improvements. Anyone seriously thinking that could be certifiably insane. The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted'" How many large families are heavily dependent on benefits? Families by number of dependent children receiving any type of out-of-work benefit To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children." www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

Quote ="cod'ead"This argument keeps getting raised by elements of the right-wing media and seems to be swallowed by the gullible. I don't know of anyone who thought that producing another child would mean an automatic right to a bigger house or more dosh from the magic money tree. Kids need to be fed and clothed and the additional state benefits of having an extra child won't leave much spare cash to fund any lifestyle improvements. Anyone seriously thinking that could be certifiably insane. The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted'" How many large families are heavily dependent on benefits? Families by number of dependent children receiving any type of out-of-work benefit To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children." www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

They must exist or they wouldn't quote them ?

What is needed at the moment is an honesty in politics, yes I know its a novel idea and it will never catch on and the politicians wouldn't understand the concept if you slapped them around the face until they did understand, so what is really needed is a news media who will ask the awkward questions until they get an answer, Paxman was a good start but they grew wise to him and he didn't have the unlimited time to his programmes that would sometimes be required to extract the truth.

So for instance when the much re-quoted lie (outright lie) of "three generation families who have never worked" was doing the rounds via the IDS department of dogma, the eponymous head of that department should have been interviewed live in a studio with the one question requiring an answer - "How many families are we talking about ?", asked and re-asked until he could provide a list of names (the department would have a list of names, after all they pay the money out), or he admitted that it was a falsehood and a lie, if it took all night to get to that point then so be it rather than have the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have to do the research weeks later and find that no such families exist - long after the lie has become factual in the media.

Likewise numbers need to be quoted, they have the statistics and politicians should not go unchallenged when they spout headline phrases about workshy feckless families as if they exist in every second household in every street in the country, numbers, just tell us how many we are talking about here and then we can all decide using our own adult brains whether or not you are looking for scapegoats.

I'll put myself forward for that interviewers job if you like?

The idea that borrowers don't, if not force, then psychologically compel people to take loans is about as untrue as the notion that advertising doesn't affect people at a subconscious level thus affecting their decision-making capability.

And before anyone replies with the usual [i"advertising doesn't affect me in any way" [/inonsense - try erasing the McDonalds logo from your memory.

I've never liked the American term "Brain Washing" not least because it is a rather clumsy and archaic abstraction which was hastily pounced upon by the media in the wake of some alarming studies undertaken by the US military in the wake of the Korean war.

A far better phrase has been commonly used by the Chinese to describe very real and twice as disturbing effects on the human mind brought about by a variety of methods (some of which, admittedly, weren't strictly ethical) - "Thought Reform".

As an aside, I recently read a couple of well researched books that were based on recently declassified CIA files relating to Project Artichoke (which subsequently came under the rubric of MK-ULTRA).

For years people have laughed off the notion that a person's entire personality can be overwritten and/or augmented (undetected by even the person himself) through the delivery of various stimuli thus creating a "Manchurian Candidate". Whilst it is true that the initial evidence for such (American POWs returning from the Korean war) was ultimately proved bogus - it is patently clear even from redacted documents that the CIA not only believed it was possible in the 1960s - they'd actually tested the theory successfully in a variety of field studies. This news was so politically explosive that when the House Select Committee on Assassinations convened during the 70s, the then CIA director, Richard Helms, burned almost all of his notes.

The above is certainly an extreme example of psychological conditioning and the techniques of implementation are far in excess of anything used in advertising. But the MK-ULTRA scientists ultimately discovered that human beings simply didn't require heavy doses of psychoactive drugs, long periods of isolation etc. anyway for significant behaviour modification. Which is precisely what Edward Bernays and his "public relations" acolytes had been telling them for years.

Indeed, the application of simple operant conditioning turned the 70-95% of American servicemen who found it difficult to impossible to fire their weapons at a distance of 30 feet from the enemy in WWII into the ruthless killers of today who fire without thought to the consequences.

The truth is - human beings are a lot easier to control than any of us dare think.

I was in a clients distribution warehouse (huge distribution warehouse) last week which, when you stood back and detached yourself from the scene, blinked and then looked again, could easily have been a scene from a science fiction film that when watched you'd think "I hope that vision of the future never comes true".

No-one walked in the warehouse, it was the size of at least three football pitches and at least forty foot high to the roof, row upon row of storage racks reached almost to the roof and all were colour and number coded and stacked high with brown cardboard boxes - small personal electric transporters with short reach fork lift or flat bed carriers scurried to and fro each with one operator who stood at the back as if welded to the unit, following instructions from a monitor perched in front of them, larger fork lifts followed them to bring boxes down from the roof if needed.

No music played, no distractions allowed, mobile phones were banned, when you were on shift you belonged to the company and you were part of the machinery of getting the boxes into the storage unit or out of the storage unit, up to 100 employees on each of three shifts worked this way, and most bizarrely they were all controlled by a stocky little man who strutted a yellow footpath along the front edge of the shelving over-viewing everything, if he needed to speak to you he blew a football referees whistle and at the whistle everyone looked up to see if it was they that he needed to speak to, if it was then you drove your transporter to him.

It was a most bizarre scene and I've been in hundreds of such warehouses before but never one so regimented as this and the more you watched the more you watched in disbelief that no-one ever considered getting off their transporters, removing their "safety gloves" and their "safety glasses" and chinning the fat controller in one final sign-off - you won't be surprised to learn that I was there on behalf of an agency and all of the staff were theirs, I seriously doubt that any of them had anything like a permanent contract of employment.

Life in 2014...

It does raise the interesting question of whether advertising constitutes as - for want of a better expression - psychological assault.

It's easy to say, "Don't watch". But very often you aren't in control of the medium. Add then the fact that it is influencing your subconscious in ways you can neither detect nor grasp the full magnitude thereof.

One thing is for sure. Goebbels would have cut his right arm off in exchange for TV.

I've seen these types of warehouses a couple of years back, there was even a silly comedy film about it from the US some while back. In terms of picking/loading it's all very efficient, I banned the radio from all my work places, some people didn't like it, but about half were releived to be rid. As far as I'm concerned you're there to work and distractions are just that. People lose focus then they make mistakes and from mistakes means people can get hurt. Ensuring people have proper breaks was a massive thing for me, seen far too many organisations where staff just flip out/become disgruntled and/or make mistakes because they don't get proper breaks and carry on through because the work load distribution is uneven. Having somewhere nice to hang out for your break/lunch always improves things everywhere I've been and introduced it.

The only stupid thing here is the sloppy nature of addressing the staff in the wharehouse with a whistle

, Information via the console as an overider direct to the person needing to be addressed is far easier or even via a headset would be far more effective and less time wasting/distracting. Blowing a whistle is just a ridiculous way to communicate in this day and age and because of what it represents/how a whistle is used (shrill dictatorial noise) it can add certain negative effects on employees & the general working environment.
Your immediate thoughts on chinning the fat controller are fairly common just because of how he addresses his staff.

Given that the overwhelming majority of radio minutes are directed towards music whose practical purpose is to drive out conscious thought (in minds capable of such), engender pathetic notions of nostalgia and "make the day go quicker..." banning it sounds like a great idea.

At the very least it might excite anaesthetised minds into leaving a job which sounds like nothing short of Victorian drudgery.

The ultimate aim of tories and kippers in their quest to "reptriate laws from Brussels"

Not surprisingly I disagree with some of the points. The whistle thing is ludicrous and contacting via the screen would be much more appropriate.

It is well known that in most cases we lag behind the very best in terms of productivity, yet when someone tries to up the anti everyone is up in arms, you can't have it both ways.

The market is very competitive driving efficiency through the supply chain is one way of improving competitive advantage. In a distribution process like that what would you expect? Replace the machines with ladders and people?

The problem with the whistle is not so much the idiot blowing it, it's his senior managers who are allowing him to act like that.

I've often visited the Mercedes Benz factories in Germany and the first surprise was seeing vending machines on the shop floor dispensing bottles of beer. When I queried it I was simply told that "it's thirsty work and they know we prohibit anyone getting drunk on the job"

A change in management attitude is usually the first thing to improving efficiency

I agree - also its management's job to ensure processes are efficient and well thought out, you need to strike the right balance in the management/employees relationship. At the end of the day the employees are paid to do a job not to socialise, that is what they do outside of the working environment

I did some contract work over an extended period at a head office for one of the big 4 mobile phone companies and they offered their staff 'free vend' on the drinks machines (Fresh tea, fresh grind coffee etc)
It worked out to 7-8 free drinks per person per day on an average 7 hour day, that's not including the ridiculously priced barista bar that was always inundated breakfast/morning break, lunch and afternoon break. I timed the 'gatherings' at the vending machines alone (because I could) and I'd say they lost at least 50 minutes just in the time to get the drinks, have a chat and walk back to their station and a couple at closer to 80 minutes.
I've worked in a fair few large blue chip/FTSE 100 organisations and it's incredibly scary how truly incompetent all levels of managament & workforces are in these companies (& how ridiculously overpaid), it beggars belief some of the stuff that goes on. No wonder this country has been in the for so long and will continue to be so.
I got to know a bit about the goings on at BAE Brough nr Hull and I'm not surprised it went to the wall, jesus H it was a free for all!!

What's your opinion on cig breaks? Way back in my office days it would drive me potty watching smokers saunter outside for a smoke once an hour for 10-15 minutes while the rest of us carried on slaving, and then take a full lunch hour.

One girl started taking 'fresh air' breaks and was threatened was disciplinary.

Workshy and stunk of cig smoke.

I had a Summer job while at uni where the smokers used to come round and ask you to cover for them for five minutes while they went outside for a cig. I used to agree so long as they covered me for five minutes while I went to toss it off outside too.

Most recently I worked with a lad who went for a 10 minute cig break every hour without fail. Over the course of an eight hour day that's 80 minutes he's basically done bugger all work compared to the rest of us. No wonder production is down these days.

We've got that covered



One of the products that we sell allocates a preset amount of minutes and/or number of breaks to be used for whatever purpose the employee desires, toilet breaks, fresh air breaks, cig breaks etc. If they register longer than their total allowance, or longer than the prescribed amount for each individual break, or exceed their number of breaks per day then they can be penalised, biometrics ensure that its the actual person taking the break - its worth noting that this is always classed as paid break time rather than unpaid compared to lunch breaks which are often unpaid, a strangely evolved situation.

Going back thirty years or more (as my working life memory allows) this sort of thing was unheard of as anyone was allowed to smoke in the workplace, at their work station, I've seen people with a cig in their mouth working on cloth cutting tables for instance where you might expect ash and embers to be banned (if only to save the product) and the only place that I ever recall which completely banned smoking and the carrying of matches on the person was a factory in Huddersfield which made the cardboard tubes for Standard Fireworks, for obvious reasons.

What cig breaks

Not if I had anything to do with it. You have your break when you're supposed to have it because there is a reason to have it then and not before/after or longer! if one elects to have a cigarette during that time that's a choice but extra breaks, no fecking way pedro... People are so selfish, hearing the usual "well i've finished my workload/task or "I'm ahead of myself" b0llox, yeah right. 95% of the time is because you haven't done it right/to the std or you've just not done it at all and the best one is when there's clearly a colleage having a bad day of it and you've opted out of the 'working in a team' bull$hite you probably spouted at interview..as per usual grrrr.

Even then if you can't change into your civvies before-hand and back again into your uniform/protective clothing/PPE in time then tough, no ciggies for you me old mucker. It isn't my fault the fag shelter is X minutes walk away though one place I went to close a contract down had a cigarette room inside the building FFS!!



Personally people stinking of smoke in a workplace environment IS anti social, it's unpleasant at best and for some people it makes them gag at the smell of it. I would address it the same as I would address someone with bad body odour but less subtly and if company policy had allowed it i would find a way to hand out warnings.

Amongst many other things I was a bit of a sorter-outer for my company. Got a bit of a rep I guess because I wouldn't stand for people being at work and treating it like a permanent Butlin's holiday

one of my nicknames was Mr P45

. usually because middle/senior management were bottlers and HR was effectively a non entity with regard to discipline. When covering site managers it'd annoy the hell out of me seeing how slack/slapdash the operation was and could understand why things were so pants in every way possible and one of the main reasons why a contract may well not be retained. Often I'd walk down to the local job centre after the 2nd day and ask them to weedle out some people for me to interview over the phone for X position/s because I'd be certain to be one or two short by the time the manager came back off his/her holiday not to mention changes I'd made in their absence.
Lots of phone calls and a few words exchanged but frankly i couldn't give a flying feck because clearly you weren't doing your job properly and it took me all of 2 weeks to sort it for you, you lazy bstd.

Sadly I saw lots of the self same thing going on around me from some very big companies that we provided our services to. it's endemic and I think progressively getting worse. I've worked with some amazing people over the years, sadly they are outnumbered and often treated like outcasts for being dedicated and good at what they do

From my experience both from working at the bottom end in minimum wage jobs to leading an albeit relatively small team id say it's a balance between ensuring people work efficiently/aren't tossing it off and helping them enjoy their work as much as is possible.

When I was younger and working minimum wage jobs I know I worked harder at the jobs where I wasn't treated like a piece of sh|t. If I was I didn't particularly care that much as to the quality of my work. It was just a matter of get through the day without getting sacked. Whereas the other jobs, despite not being paid anymore, because I was treated better or the conditions of work were better I felt more valued and felt more responsible for my own work. So consequently worked harder and better.
I've also found the same when leading a team. Treat them like human beings and you'll generally get far more out of them. You'll also keep them for much longer so aren't constantly having to recruit and train staff. If you treat people like robots then they won't care about what they're doing. Treat them well and you'll get mostly good workers regardless of whether it's minimum wage.

Having said all that, you can't let people take the mick. It's not fair for the business and also, crucially, doesn't half antagonise your "loyal" staff who work hard and then see someone else slacking off.

Exactly, it's the same no matter what level you are at. i'd bust my balls when I stepped up the ladder to make things better/easier/more efficient(more so than when I was a foot soldier) but some people hate change. Including staff in the process helps and subtly co-ercing them toward what ultimately you want them to do but allowing them the good feeling of being part of the process of changing for the better makes it so much easier.
Id always offer to give help/training to those that wanted or indeed I thought needed it. you use your own personal experience to guide your charges and sometimes even those above you.
ATEOTD some people are just lazy bone idle useless feckers and no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try there's always some whom want to upset the apple cart. whilst there are times you can cajole, encourage, put up with and even just ignore them often you just have to go through due process and turf them out because they absolutely will not change their attitude/habits/performance level no matter what you try.
I hate those scenarios because it is so bloody time consuming and staff are often upset/put out even more because said individual is being even more of a c0ck than usual.
Being a wallah is oh so much simpler..lol