I know I keep making the point but the biggest issue is the lack of 40hr a week Mon-Fri jobs, which lets all be honest, is everyones impression of what they mean when they say "get a job".

As others have pointed out though, what might be needed is a change of attitude towards what the employers are looking for, a more flexible attitude to how and when you work, for the last five years the boot has been firmly on the feet of the employers hence the epidemic of non-committal work contracts, but maybe its how things have to be - after all we are all consumers and its our demands for cheap goods and foods almost 24 hours a day and our demands for retailers to open 7 days a week and stay open for longer, that have at least partly driven the need for a more flexible workforce, we are all to blame not just the employer.

My wife works in the hotel industry where the business is a true 24 hour 365 day a year business and the idea that she or ANY of her colleagues would ever do a 40 hour Mon-Fri routine is laughable and yet the turnover of staff across that industry is huge even though the quantity of weekly hours are generally available to anyone who wants them, maybe they just don't want them ?

Do you really think that that is what is happening?

What about the number of jobs available as opposed the number of people officially listed as seeking work (there are many people who are working part time, but who want more work. However, as long as they're doing a couple of hours a week or even on a zero-hours contract, they do not count on the unemployment figures)?

I got so concerned about British staff being sidelined in favour of bringing-in non-EU employees that I enquired, via my MP, whether it was legal.
It turns out that it not only was (and still is) perfectly legal it's pretty much encouraged.
Where a company has a presence in, say, India and the UK, it can perfectly legally obtain visas for the Indian employees to come to Britain, temporarily, to do the work.
They are not supposed to be allowed to recruit outside the EU specifically for a UK project but that rule is pretty much unenforceable.

The people thus imported may well be very nice hardworking people with the right skills and I have no beef with them personally, I'd do the same in their position ... but that is not the issue.

It used to be the norm (maybe still is?) that, for a non-EU national to get a visa, the UK employer had to affirm that they couldn't reasonably get anyone in the UK with the right skills and, after maybe a couple of years, they'd be told that they should have trained someone by now and the visa renewal would be refused.
[uThis rule does not apply[/u (or, if it does, is not being enforced) where the employer has a presence in both countries ... I think it ought to.

I thought that that was still the case: there was certainly discussion (at the least) a few years ago, at Parliamentary level, to that effect – or perhaps that was just possible caps being discussed. I remember jockeys coming in the category of skilled workers of whom there was a UK shortfall.



Not entirely unrelated to Ed M's recent policy proposals, then.



It seems partly to come back to the point that's been discussed here more than once of employers expecting that any new employee is fully trained before they start a job, and thus requires no investment in training by the employer – to the extent of the CBI (IIRC) complaining, a few years ago, about how school leavers were not trained in customer relations.

I don't personally recall employers in 'the olden days' expecting this – or expecting not to train a new employee themselves.

Globalisation and neo-liberalism at work again, it seems.

Course Title : How to be a Government Minister

Lesson 1 : How to claim a victory from defeat

Study text ... [urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499[/url

Case History : Your Government rushes through some hastily thought legislation which allows you to make the unemployed do free work for their benefits under threat of losing some or all of their benefits if they do not, one claimant takes you to the High Court and asks for a judgement on two issues...

1. You did not explain fully that you were not entitled in law to remove some or all of her benefits if she did not comply

2. You were using her as slave labour under Human Rights legislation

The court finds in favour of the claimant for point 1 but against the claimant for point 2.

You don't like this because the press give you a right slagging off, so you appeal to the Supreme Court so that both issues can be found in your favour.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court agrees with the High Court and the judgements stay as they were.

Your task today is to present this second slap in the face from the Supreme Court in a manner which makes it look as though you have won the appeal instead of lost it, at the public expense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For the answer to this question see the linked BBC News reports and read the final few paragraphs which contain statements from two Government Ministers and a Government Department who all claim a victory despite the real fact that they lost their appeal.



Next weeks lecture : How the Japanese won the war in the Pacific in 1945.

But surely they must cut Iain Duncan Sniff some slack in case he "believes" they are wrong?

Nice one Iain.

So let me get this straight, the High Court agrees with you earlier this year that your workfare program was not forced labour, so you put in an appeal to the Supreme Court so that they can also say that your workfare program was not forced labour ?

So Iain, in his wisdom, appealed a High Court judgment because he agreed with the High Court judgement but wanted the Supreme Court to also agree with him.

I happen to think that he is a fekkin idiot, unfortunately the way he behaves and in his press releases he also seems to think that we are all fekkin idiots too.

And Ed Balls says he was still right to ignore procedure and sack Sharon Shoesmith: it's a growing culture.

So the outcome of this ruling is so long as the scheme is explained properly then it is totally legal. Sounds reasonable to me.

Cait Reilly now works for a supermarket but apparently her work at Poundland didn't help her get the job.

It should have been explained properly in the first place, incompetence and a rushing through of rulings ensured that it was badly implemented, not the first time something similar has been declared illegal by the courts either.

But you've missed my point completely, the point being the incredible gall of the politicians to completely ignore the bad news element of the ruling (they lost their appeal) and instead waffle on about the bit that they won several months ago that wasn't even part of this appeal.

They treat us like idiots, and the big problem is that there are plenty like you willing to swallow all of it, thank them, and ask for more.

No, politicians would never do such a thing.

Maybe if it gets your blood pressure up so much you could always ignore such stories in future. No one forces you to read quotes from politicians.

Well yes, as it is with pretty much everything a government does, if the law requires it to do so. If the law says one thing and they don't do it, they lose.

The number of times governments of whatever hue have lost cases in the courts because they don't follow what the law says beggars belief. And you me and everyone on here is paying for IDS etc to challenge these decisions because they don't/won't listen to their advisers

It must be nice in your tinky-winky world where all politicians can be accepted without question and the Daily Mail always gets the story - keep your mouth open and keep swallowing.

Gobble gobble.

Sounds like you're suggesting that our little friend basically fellates the politicians/commentators he wants.

Perhaps that's what screws his brain and prevents him for ever actually making a constructive contribution to a thread?

Yes it is very nice thank you. Thankfully I take quotes from politicians with a pinch of salt and realise they have a reason for everything they say. Maybe you should try it sometime - stop yourself getting so wound up.

Their main reason is to lie to save face.

Keep swallowing.

Swallowing what?

No need - BG

I've reported your abuse.

Learn to use the report function - BG

OK - contribute an opinion.

What do you think of the three spokespersons for HM Government when they heard the news from the Supreme Court that they had lost their appeal, why do you think messrs McVey, Duncan Smith and the anonymous DWP voice all focused on an element of the case that they won several months ago rather than commenting directly on the subject of their appeal ?

And while you are contributing throw in your opinion on the fairly new phenomenon of Civil Service departments offering political opinions such as the DWP has done today by repeating the Tory Party line, this is a department who potentially may have to be tugging a forelock to a Labour Government in 18 months and probably singing from a different hymnsheet - so what do you think about them issuing statements that have clearly not been written with a neutral slant and when exactly do you think that started to happen ?



Should be simple enough for you to opine...

Abuse?

It is what politicians do. Not just politicians either. People in all walks of life.

Make things sound better/worse/different than they actually are.

It is a bit like when you and others call the spare room subsidy the 'bedroom tax' when it is not a tax in any way shape or form. You know the word tax has negative connotations so you use this phrase in an attempt to turn people to your opinion / make people sympathise with your point of view.



No opinion on this / Don't care.

Its nothing like the same thing.

To keep things simple, and topical on this forum, THIS is what its like ...

Reporter to Hull supporter : "Wigan gave your team a real stuffing in the Challenge Cup Final this year didn't they?"

Hull supporters answer : "Until we got those two drop goals in the last two minutes I thought we were going to lose that game at the DW stadium"


Its not putting a positive spin on a crushing defeat, its completely ignoring the issue of a crushing defeat by stating something completely irrelevant.

Cool.
As this Supreme Court ruling was [uexactly the same[/u as the Appeal Court ruling, you therefore agree that HMG (esp. IDS) gained abso-feckin-lutely nothing by taking it to the Supreme Court ... and wasted our money in doing so?

An answer to this post would be appreciated my dear Marie.