"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:36:11 -0000, tim...
wrote:

from last night, still on catch up (I guess)

Didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know TBH

1) Benefits on offer to the "wont work" are far too generous if an
unemployed person can say "I wouldn't get out of bed for 7.50 an hour"
and/or "I rather spend the time at home with my girlfriend". We need to
systematically reduce benefits for the fit and healthy the longer they
are
on benefits.

2) Employers have far too high an expectation from a minimum wage worker.
The clue is in the word "minimum". Expecting a "self starter who can
manage
themselves and produce high quality work with the highest quantity of
output", in an employee straight off the street is unreasonable. If
someone
*can* achieve all that then they are a *senior* grade worker and they
should
be paid accordingly.

But for the majority, new hires require management *effort* to train
themn
in the way to do the job that you need doing, teaching them the tips to
get
the job done better/faster that if left to their own devices they will
never
discover AND wait several weeks/months (not just a few hours) for them to
get up to speed. You cannot expect the education system to have trained
up
school leavers in every single job that might be encountered as a job
seeker, that is the task of *management*. Stop whinging about how the
available hires are lacking in these skills and do your own bloody job
properly, before complaining that someone else can't do theirs properly.

3) The problem in 2 is exacerbated by the minimum wage being too high.
This idea that any/every job should pay a "family living wage" is
political
nonsense. Employers must have the scope to pay people in training what
they
are worth to the company. And that is never going to be the living wage.
Of course you have to ensure that once they reach the expected ability
level
employers do actually reward staff for that, and not just continue to pay
them the in-training "pittance"

4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies. I have no idea what
margins for this type of casual work are, but most people with
recruitment
"skills" wouldn't get out of bed for 50 grand (they'll just go and work
for
an employer who pays them more). I understand that genuine casual work
(such as catering at an event) requires agency staff, but if you have an
ongoing requirement for a worker why the **** are you paying the agency
margin week after week. Take the guy(/girl) on permanently and use the
money saved to increase the guy's (girl's) wage when they reach the
required
performance level.

Until we solve these (completely self inflicted) problems, things are not
going to improve

Oh and the current crop of school leavers needs to drop "the world owes
us a
living" attitude that some of them seem to have.

timmy



Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

Where I used to work we took on apprentices as well as trainees for non-
engineering roles and to start with they take more than they contribute,
eating in to the time of the skilled people they are working with and
their output of course often required rework. And that is fine, part of
the deal, but if you have to pay them almost as much as you have to pay
skilled folk it becomes less attractive to take on the ones who need to
most initial help.

as I said to the other poster

I don't think that the comparisons with apprenticeships is valid as
apprenticeships are meant to give you training (and a certificate) in a
trade

And historically providing apprenticeships isn't just a cost on the company
as where there is a training levy imposed by HMG (as there used to be)
offering apprenticeships gets you credits against that levy.

But here we were just taking about getting you up to speed when using simple
equipment. Something that would take 1-4 weeks of a learning curve, but the
guy given the job was expect to be up to speed in 2 days with no support.

tim