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

In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

tim





--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 17 November 2017 09:37:15 UTC, tim... wrote:
4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies.

1. Because agency workers have even fewer rights than employees on zero hour contracts.

2. Because as the programme showed, interviewing workshy deadbeats takes up a lot of time and effort, hence cost.

Owain

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 November 2017 09:37:15 UTC, tim... wrote:
4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies.

1. Because agency workers have even fewer rights than employees on zero
hour contracts.

not in the first years

because none of them have any rights


2. Because as the programme showed, interviewing workshy deadbeats takes
up a lot of time and effort, hence cost.

Well that just a cost of doing business that these people need to learn how
to manage

tim

wrote:

interviewing workshy deadbeats takes up a lot of time and effort

Putting out the cans of value lager and wine in plastic cups was classy,
but why were they surprised at the types that attracted?

tim... presented the following explanation :
1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

As did I, but these days they expect and get everything now. A struggle
to survive, until they get on a firm footing, is just not a part of
their expected deal.

On 17/11/2017 09:36, tim... wrote:

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.

They do have some of that - the minimum wage for those under 20 is £5.13

There are also apprenticeship schemes where you can pay lower wages
(~12K/year) in recognition that they are also receiving value from a
defined package of training.

Not a perfect system by any means, but not quite as black and white as
some would paint it.

4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies.

Because from their point of view, its not a waste. Recruitment is a slow
and expensive process - especially if you are a smaller firm and don't
have a HR department to offload the process onto.

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.

Its about managing risk, and retaining the ability to react to changes
in the market. The employer may not be sure how long the position will
last, or if a particular venture will be successful. Doing it on a
temporary basis makes it possible to "try" when the risks to the
employer would otherwise be to high.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/11/2017 10:48, tim... wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 November 2017 09:37:15 UTC, tim...Â* wrote:
4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies.

1. Because agency workers have even fewer rights than employees on
zero hour contracts.

not in the first years

because none of them have any rights


it is a misconception that an employer can dismiss any employee in the
first 2 years without risk.

Employees can bring a claim for unfair dismissal on grounds of
discrimination ( age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex and sexual orientation). And other things such as exercising their
rights not to work Sundays.

And the Supreme Court struck down charges for employees taking claims to
the ET so it's a free shot for them.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 17/11/2017 11:25, John Rumm wrote:

Its about managing risk, and retaining the ability to react to changes
in the market. The employer may not be sure how long the position will
last, or if a particular venture will be successful. Doing it on a
temporary basis makes it possible to "try" when the risks to the
employer would otherwise be to high.


+1

France is notoriously worse but that doesn't mean the UK is an easy
place to be an employer.





--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

On 17/11/2017 11:58, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â*Â* tim... wrote:
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".Â* We
need to
systematically reduce benefits for the fit and healthy the longer they
are on benefits.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will
be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

In 1914 this article suggest it was the equivalent of 1p.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...ys-Lloyds.html

It looks as if 2s 6d was quite a bit. Certainly could have bought a lot
more than 6 loaves. Positively rolling in it.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2017 11:58, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be
the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

In 1914 this article suggest it was the equivalent of 1p.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...ys-Lloyds.html

It looks as if 2s 6d was quite a bit. Certainly could have bought a lot
more than 6 loaves. Positively rolling in it.

Absolutely, I was chuffed to bits at the time

In article ,
"tim..." writes:
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.

I'm not up-to-date with what's on offer, but I thought benefits for
those who are in theory able to work are only available if they can
show they are actively looking for work.

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.

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2 years
before they started paying back - until that point they are consuming
more management/training resources than they contribute back in work.
So unless they stay for probably 4-5 years, they were only a drain on
the company. This was within a large UK company (GEC).

I imagine this is the same at whatever level you are recruiting
(grads or school leavers), although the payback period may vary.

The computing industry and type of graduates have changed since then,
and people who will take 4-5 years to payback won't get a job offer
in the first place now. OTOH, university training is more relevant to
the job now too, so those grads who enter the industry can become
more productive significantly faster than 30+ years ago. Summer
internships and sandwich courses are also really important for
computing grads to be someway up to speed when they look for their
first job, and things like visible opensource work - that's a
significant change from 30 years ago.

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"

This is always a difficult balance. The UK did a stunningly good job
of maintaining almost full employment through the last recession - much
better than any other country which was hit by it, and all the parties
involved (Labour, the coalition, and Conservatives) are due significant
praise in achieving this which is, I think, a first during any recession.
This means the balance was about right for the economic climate.

There will always be people who can't do £7.50 worth of work in an hour
(and that applies wherever you set the limit), and a minimum wage makes
people below that level of productivity unemployable. Living on the minimum
wage will be a struggle whenever it's set to avoid large amounts of
unemployment, and being employed should always be better than being
unemployed or it generates wrong incentives. The balance is in getting
this right.

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.

Same argument as why do people sell houses through estate agents.
Many companies simply don't have the time or skills or contacts to
find the candidates they need. There's also a legal reason for
engaging staff through an intermediary if you don't want them to
be classed as employees (and that might well go in the budget).

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.

There are some other things that need sorting such as unpaid internships
need banning, but that will be hard on political parties so it probably
won't happen.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

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.

And of course there is your final comment which is in part of product of
both some politician and most of the media telling young people how hard
done by they are and how good everyone over the age of 30 had it before
them - free running jobs, cheap housing and free education - except it
wasn't like that at all for so many of us.

The problems and issues were not the same, that is for sure, but times
are always tough for some and good for others and to keep being fed this
idea that you are being stolen from when in fact you simply have to make
the most of the opportunities that are there for the taking - the same
as every other generation in the past.

I get particularly ****ed off at the young ones who think that they
should be able to leave home and fall into a job that will pay for a
whole house to themselves, fully furnished, together with new cars,
holidays and nights out. We NEVER had that.

Instead we all have 10th hand cars that we'd help each other to keep
running, we had holidays in Blackpool if at all and would only go to the
pub on pay day. And we *all* lived at home with our parents while we
saved for a house deposit rather than wasting it on rent!

And I haven't even watched the show yet. :-)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:37:57 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did


It is a hell of a lot more than I earned when I was an apprentice, where
we had enough for travel, food, one evening out with just a couple of
beers and to pay at bit of 'rent' to Mum and Dad.

And we accepted that because rather than contribute, we initially cost
the company money to train us.

Looking back, perhaps we should have got a bit more, but at the end of
it we came out trained and with skills enough to command a decent wage
in the future and was because the company was prepared to take the hit
on us initially rather than employ folks who already had more skills.

Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:37:57 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did


It is a hell of a lot more than I earned when I was an apprentice, where
we had enough for travel, food, one evening out with just a couple of
beers and to pay at bit of 'rent' to Mum and Dad.

And we accepted that because rather than contribute, we initially cost
the company money to train us.

Looking back, perhaps we should have got a bit more, but at the end of
it we came out trained and with skills enough to command a decent wage
in the future and was because the company was prepared to take the hit
on us initially rather than employ folks who already had more skills.


When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low. The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else. A quid a week, something like that. The union
kicked up a fuss about 'differentials', so it never happened.

"bm" wrote in message
eb.com...

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be
the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

my first job was 33.5 pence per hour

admittedly that was a Saturday job whilst still at school

first "real job" paid 1 pound per hour (40 pounds per week)

tim

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2017 11:58, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be
the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

In 1914 this article suggest it was the equivalent of 1p.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...ys-Lloyds.html

It looks as if 2s 6d was quite a bit.

Um someone in a job on 2s 6d per week in 1914 would be 120 now

are you suggesting that is the case?

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be
the usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

Yes - when starting out in your career. You didn't make that distinction
when referring to unemployment benefits. And the young unemployed already
get less than the older.

Unemployment benefit is already far less than the OAP. Are you suggesting
that is super generous too?

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , tim...
writes

and yes it IS what I did

As did I Tim, and probably most who are reading this, and are of our age
group. I started in a shared furnished flat, then bought my first
house, not in the best part of town. Moved in with nothing new.
Everything, from cutlery and crockery to bedding and towels to furniture
and carpets was scrounged from friends and family. The spare bedroom
was bare floorboards and no furniture, but I didn't care. It was home.
An ancient B&W TV. Later, a twin tub. Eventually given a 1930s dining
table, with chairs! Bedroom furniture was immediate post war plywood
'utility' furniture. Cooker a prehistoric New World. Second hand
carpet tiles I scrounged from an office I worked in at the time. Drove
a series of old bangers bought cheaply, insured TPF&T only. I had moved
from East Herts to Bristol, and visited family using my thumb, to save
fuel I couldn't afford. Took washing home to Mum in a cardboard
suitcase. Cut the grass with shears because I didn't have a mower. Fed
the cat left over mashed potato and gravy. But I was young, single,
independent, and happy :-)

I sincerely doubt I was earning as much as today's minimum wage.
--
Graeme

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

In 1914 this article suggest it was the equivalent of 1p.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...ys-Lloyds.html

It looks as if 2s 6d was quite a bit. Certainly could have bought a lot
more than 6 loaves. Positively rolling in it.

Didn't realise bm was about 120 years old. It certainly explains a lot.

--
*If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/11/2017 10:48, tim... wrote:


wrote in message
...


2. Because as the programme showed, interviewing workshy deadbeats
takes up a lot of time and effort, hence cost.

Well that just a cost of doing business that these people need to learn
how to manage

They have, they outsource the job to a specialist and pay them to do it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"tim..." writes:
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.

I'm not up-to-date with what's on offer, but I thought benefits for
those who are in theory able to work are only available if they can
show they are actively looking for work.

the woman in the agency said that she was fed up with people coming into her
office and saying

"can you sign this"

"Um, why?"

"so that I can get my benefits this week"

she didn't say whether she signed it or sent them off with flea in their
ear.

But in any case I don't think that the enforcement of the rule is as active
as it might be. It seems more aimed at punishing people for truing up late
for their signing on appointment because their bus was cancelled, than
actually checking up if people are reasonably turning down work, or not.

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.

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2 years
before they started paying back - until that point they are consuming
more management/training resources than they contribute back in work.
So unless they stay for probably 4-5 years, they were only a drain on
the company. This was within a large UK company (GEC).

but we aren't talking that sort of work

the example that we saw was someone pushing laundry through a finishing
roller

It was apparent from the assessment report that he didn't do this fast
enough, but it was also apparent that he had been give no instruction on now
to do it efficiently and was only assed over a couple of days trial.

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.

There are some other things that need sorting such as unpaid internships
need banning, but that will be hard on political parties so it probably
won't happen.

there's no reason why the "charity" exemption can't continue whilst cracking
down on the pretence when used for "real jobs"

tim

In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low. The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else. A quid a week, something like that. The union
kicked up a fuss about 'differentials', so it never happened.

You must have had an odd union. And a very shortsighted one. If management
offer a pay rise to one group of workers that would normally be accepted
gratefully. Then the subject of differentials brought up at the next round
of pay talks.

--
*Haunted French pancakes give me the crepes.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:45:12 +0000, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:37:57 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did


It is a hell of a lot more than I earned when I was an apprentice, where
we had enough for travel, food, one evening out with just a couple of
beers and to pay at bit of 'rent' to Mum and Dad.

And we accepted that because rather than contribute, we initially cost
the company money to train us.

Looking back, perhaps we should have got a bit more, but at the end of
it we came out trained and with skills enough to command a decent wage
in the future and was because the company was prepared to take the hit
on us initially rather than employ folks who already had more skills.


When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low. The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else. A quid a week, something like that. The union
kicked up a fuss about 'differentials', so it never happened.

And that is an issue with the so called living wage now that politicians
want to bump up to being the sort of money a semi-skilled person would
earn.

Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow said he
wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he wasn't interested.

First, how are these people living now?

And second, £15 an hour!!! That is over 30 grand a year.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:00:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be
the usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

Yes - when starting out in your career. You didn't make that distinction
when referring to unemployment benefits. And the young unemployed already
get less than the older.

Unemployment benefit is already far less than the OAP. Are you suggesting
that is super generous too?

Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2 years
before they started paying back - until that point they are consuming
more management/training resources than they contribute back in work.
So unless they stay for probably 4-5 years, they were only a drain on
the company. This was within a large UK company (GEC).


But back then the GEC/Marconi way was to de-skill the graduates first by
giving them completely menial tasks and then at the end of the second
year re-train then in the inefficient corporate ways.

These days you may find that with certain ways of recruitment to weed
out the dross before employment, sponsored formal training and giving
work experience in holiday periods before full time employment gets you
well motivated graduates that give productive output in a very short
time. Long gone are the days when an engineering graduate will have (or
want) the same job for life or even possibly stay with their first
company for more than a couple of years.

Even with more highly paid skilled jobs poor management will give you an
inefficient work force.

When I worked for GEC in the early 1990s failed engineers became
managers who were then promoted to a level of incompetence.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

In 1914 this article suggest it was the equivalent of 1p.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...ys-Lloyds.html

It looks as if 2s 6d was quite a bit. Certainly could have bought a lot
more than 6 loaves. Positively rolling in it.

Didn't realise bm was about 120 years old. It certainly explains a lot.

Ohh look, it's smartarse Dave again.
hahahah
Dear oh dear.
No, i'm of 1948 vintage.
..

On 17/11/2017 12:32, Yellow wrote:


Instead we all have 10th hand cars that we'd help each other to keep
running, we had holidays in Blackpool if at all and would only go to the
pub on pay day. And we *all* lived at home with our parents while we
saved for a house deposit rather than wasting it on rent!

+1 And most of my friends at the time were doing the same.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low. The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else. A quid a week, something like that. The union
kicked up a fuss about 'differentials', so it never happened.

You must have had an odd union. And a very shortsighted one. If management

I don't have any other union experience to compare it to, so I don't
know. In the end, I saved myself a few quid, and cancelled my
membership. A few people fell out with me, but no-one I cared about.
The meetings were pretty scary anyway - a few loudmouths dominating the
proceedings, and (since it was pre-secret ballot days) the voting. That
may explain the shortsightedness - sheer envy by a few hotheads?

offer a pay rise to one group of workers that would normally be accepted
gratefully. Then the subject of differentials brought up at the next round
of pay talks.

On 17/11/2017 10:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.


Sorry, Dave, didn't realise it was you talking. Thought for a moment
that I was hearing JC on the doorstep of his £1 million+ doorstep (paid
for, in part, by fees from an official Iranian TV channel) ... or was it
Emily Thornberry in front of her multi-million pound house? Probably not
her - she is, at least, smart enough to never be caught by the media in
front of her house.

Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:45:12 +0000, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:37:57 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did


It is a hell of a lot more than I earned when I was an apprentice, where
we had enough for travel, food, one evening out with just a couple of
beers and to pay at bit of 'rent' to Mum and Dad.

And we accepted that because rather than contribute, we initially cost
the company money to train us.

Looking back, perhaps we should have got a bit more, but at the end of
it we came out trained and with skills enough to command a decent wage
in the future and was because the company was prepared to take the hit
on us initially rather than employ folks who already had more skills.


When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low. The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else. A quid a week, something like that. The union
kicked up a fuss about 'differentials', so it never happened.

And that is an issue with the so called living wage now that politicians
want to bump up to being the sort of money a semi-skilled person would
earn.

Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow said he
wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he wasn't interested.


I don't have a TV licence, so I will have to forego the pleasure, I'm
afraid.

First, how are these people living now?

And second, £15 an hour!!! That is over 30 grand a year.

On 17/11/2017 10:37, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* tim... wrote:
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".Â* We need to
systematically reduce benefits for the fit and healthy the longer they
are on benefits.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

+1

On 17/11/2017 11:15, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
tim... presented the following explanation :
1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

As did I, but these days they expect and get everything now.

I think Corbyn and Co and their fairy money stories got the snowflakes
all frothing around the mouth and believing his tales.

On 17/11/2017 11:58, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â*Â* tim... wrote:
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".Â* We
need to
systematically reduce benefits for the fit and healthy the longer they
are on benefits.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will
be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.

On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"tim..." writes:
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.

I'm not up-to-date with what's on offer, but I thought benefits for
those who are in theory able to work are only available if they can
show they are actively looking for work.

They know how to play the system - at that stage they are already on the
sick.

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:45:12 +0000, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:37:57 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
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.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be
the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did


It is a hell of a lot more than I earned when I was an apprentice,
where
we had enough for travel, food, one evening out with just a couple of
beers and to pay at bit of 'rent' to Mum and Dad.

And we accepted that because rather than contribute, we initially cost
the company money to train us.

Looking back, perhaps we should have got a bit more, but at the end of
it we came out trained and with skills enough to command a decent wage
in the future and was because the company was prepared to take the hit
on us initially rather than employ folks who already had more skills.


When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low. The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else. A quid a week, something like that. The union
kicked up a fuss about 'differentials', so it never happened.

And that is an issue with the so called living wage now that politicians
want to bump up to being the sort of money a semi-skilled person would
earn.

Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow said he
wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he wasn't interested.

First, how are these people living now?

And second, £15 an hour!!! That is over 30 grand a year.

That must be about average or less, shirley?

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/11/2017 09:36, tim... wrote:

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.

They do have some of that - the minimum wage for those under 20 is £5.13

Oh is it under 20. I thought it was 18.

(that means the 19 YO on this program ought to have been "caught" but there
was no suggestion that he wasn't paid the standard 7.50 NMW.)

There are also apprenticeship schemes where you can pay lower wages
(~12K/year) in recognition that they are also receiving value from a
defined package of training.

apprenticeships schemes have to be registered in order to make sure that
they provide the necessary certificated training. Just training you how to
use a specialist piece of equipment doesn't count.

If anything the rules for this are too lax, don't make them easier than they
are, there's enough abuse already.

Not a perfect system by any means, but not quite as black and white as
some would paint it.

4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies.

Because from their point of view, its not a waste. Recruitment is a slow
and expensive process - especially if you are a smaller firm and don't
have a HR department to offload the process onto.

Smaller firms just get the owner to do it

I know of many that do

It's easy to filter out the time wasters. - Invariably they just don't turn
up for the interview :-) (as we saw with the agency interview)

I don't believe that it's the chore that you make it out to be, if you start
with the expectations that you are hiring a permanent employee and not just
a different casual each week.

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.

Its about managing risk, and retaining the ability to react to changes in
the market. The employer may not be sure how long the position will last,
or if a particular venture will be successful. Doing it on a temporary
basis makes it possible to "try" when the risks to the employer would
otherwise be to high.

The jobs in question seemed to be week after week after week

You can sack some up to a year with no costs involved (other than a weeks
notice), so I don't buy that explanation

tim