BBC salaries.

[carl]

It's a valid point that people kniow the terms of their employment before they take the job but sometimes people are desperate and have to take what's available..and then perhaps look for something else that's better paid. Not everyone can choose not to 'take it'.

 

They are desperate because they are blackmailed by the Department of Work and pensions to take jobs which are low in rates due to the massive demand by the Eastern Europeans who Big business and Employment agencies exploit.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

They are desperate because they are blackmailed by the Department of Work and pensions to take jobs which are low in rates due to the massive demand by the Eastern Europeans who Big business and Employment agencies exploit.

 

Or simply cos they have financial responsibilities and need a wage to meet them..nowt to do with immigrants, DWP nor anything else other than needing a wage

[kevin_struggles]

I was making a statement that perhaps was more directed at the big corporations who fail to pay a living wage. Apologies, I once thought I read that you were running a business.

 

That is the vision of UKIP to eventually create a better, competitive, job market where it would become a win win for prospective small business owners and unemployed people, and a victory over the massive corporations who Russell Brand referred to on question time last night.

 

No I dont run a business, I used to manage one at a high level but it was long unsociable hours and I wanted to spend more time with my loved ones so I took redundancy.

 

I now have a job where I earn less but I spend more time at home.

 

Encouraging businesses is, indeed, the way forwards.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Why would anyone be againt massive corporations that employ 100s of 1000s of people in the UK? Attack them and they go overseas taking their jobs with them.

[cheeky]

I was making a statement that perhaps was more directed at the big corporations who fail to pay a living wage. Apologies, I once thought I read that you were running a business. You are slightly correct to state that it is ridiculous for people to moan about their wages but let's not forget that the governments force people into employment that they really do not want. An example of this, is that at Job centres, if you do not find anything 'suitable', then you are then picked jobs by the Officer at the job centre and then 'encouraged' to apply with the threat that if they do not, at least, show that they are applying, then their benefits will become sanctioned.

 

Many jobs that get advertised are really low in pay, and the companies know, that should they not attract enough interest that there is another 300 waiting in Romania to take the jobs at minimum wage. Meanwhile, the claimant who knows that the wages, are really low for the labour asked of that person, is then forced to apply for a job which is underpaid. I do not think that this is fair, and what UKIP proposes is to free the red tape which smaller businesses cannot compete with, and it would not mean a reduction in employee rights but vast room to negotiate such entities, and an onus put on larger companies to offer a better wage or they will lose candidates to smaller business because the cheap labour that comes from eastern countries would no longer be there.

 

That is the vision of UKIP to eventually create a better, competitive, job market where it would become a win win for prospective small business owners and unemployed people, and a victory over the massive corporations who Russell Brand referred to on question time last night.

 

The government force people into taking jobs? Surely if you're unemployed, any job even if it is minimum wage, is better than no job and will provide a weekly income far greater than their dole cheque. Plus, it's easier to get a job when you're in a job. I really don't understand your logic here. If someone refuses to take a job when they're on the dole, of course they should have their benefits stopped. They don't need it if employment is available to them and this public money could be better spent elsewhere.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

An example of this, is that at Job centres, if you do not find anything 'suitable', then you are then picked jobs by the Officer at the job centre and then 'encouraged' to apply with the threat that if they do not, at least, show that they are applying, then their benefits will become sanctioned.

 

And the problem with that is?

 

Surely everyone who is unemployed (as opposed to unable to work) should as a very minimum be applying for jobs? Surely it's wrong that hard working people such as yourself should subsidise the lives of people who don't want to take a job cos they think the wages are too low for what they are being asked to do? Surely once in work you stand a better chance of getting a better job later?

 

And I apologise for calling you Shirley :)

[bookworm]

And the problem with that is?

 

Surely everyone who is unemployed (as opposed to unable to work) should as a very minimum be applying for jobs? Surely it's wrong that hard working people such as yourself should subsidise the lives of people who don't want to take a job cos they think the wages are too low for what they are being asked to do? Surely once in work you stand a better chance of getting a better job later?

 

And I apologise for calling you Shirley :)

ohhh! aren't i pleased i'm now retired and don't have to worry about the gestapo like tactics of the dwp,bin there been remonstrated to by some intense young tart about being 2 mins late for an appointment.Retirement brings it's own problems but also leaves behing some of the crap claimants have to endure.

[carl]

The government force people into taking jobs? Surely if you're unemployed, any job even if it is minimum wage, is better than no job and will provide a weekly income far greater than their dole cheque. Plus, it's easier to get a job when you're in a job. I really don't understand your logic here. If someone refuses to take a job when they're on the dole, of course they should have their benefits stopped. They don't need it if employment is available to them and this public money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

I was responding to Kevin's post who stated that people should not moan about their wages if they take and accept the job. My point was many people will see jobs as underpaid and with not much reward as they feel a paying job should reward them, but even though morally they should have the choice to choose a job what suits them, their skill set and the right fair amount of pay, they simply would be forced to work by the benefits people. Yes you are right to say if there is work available that they should take it but, on the same token they should not be forced to take work which is not right for them. And arguing that they are better off is questionable. For a start there is the rising costs of rent, council tax, food, petrol costs, tv licence,rising utility bills, the list goes on and the increases leave depressed stagnant wages way behind, so actually for every year they work on stagnant wages, they would become increasingly worse off.

[Aussie Rules]

I was responding to Kevin's post who stated that people should not moan about their wages if they take and accept the job. My point was many people will see jobs as underpaid and with not much reward as they feel a paying job should reward them, but even though morally they should have the choice to choose a job what suits them, their skill set and the right fair amount of pay, they simply would be forced to work by the benefits people. Yes you are right to say if there is work available that they should take it but, on the same token they should not be forced to take work which is not right for them. And arguing that they are better off is questionable. For a start there is the rising costs of rent, council tax, food, petrol costs, tv licence,rising utility bills, the list goes on and the increases leave depressed stagnant wages way behind, so actually for every year they work on stagnant wages, they would become increasingly worse off.

 

Obviously I'm not apprised of the British system re. social security payments (Dole money) - so clarification please Carl.

 

Would not a working wage be more than the 'Dole? If so, would it not be the case that a year receiving 'Dole payments would leave a person in a deeper financial pickle with regards to increasing living costs - unless, of course, there are other forms of social security relief to help ease the increasing living costs for those unemployed?

[Aussie Rules]

we don't pay for TV licences in this neck of the woods having been scrapped many years ago.

 

As I recall the licence fee was a political imposed tax by any other name and, would you believe it, many chose not to buy one.

 

We still pay for our ABC (your BBC) through other taxes.

 

A tax is a tax, is a tax disguised by many impost pseudonyms - some you see, others you don't.

[carl]

Obviously I'm not apprised of the British system re. social security payments (Dole money) - so clarification please Carl.

 

Would not a working wage be more than the 'Dole? If so, would it not be the case that a year receiving 'Dole payments would leave a person in a deeper financial pickle with regards to increasing living costs - unless, of course, there are other forms of social security relief to help ease the increasing living costs for those unemployed?

 

If a person leaves unemployment he loses his Unemployment benefit and housing benefit along with his council tax benefit this equates on local levels to at least £210 per month. On minimum wage on a 40 hour week, a person earning £6.50 an hour earns £260 net. With factors such as in work benefits and petrol expenses such as running a car ect I very much doubt that even with the help of in work benefits that it leads to an acceptable level of prosperity.

 

You are asking the wrong person really, for accurate figures, as I have always worked way in excess of 40 hours and £1 above the minimum wage due to the nature of my employment, but I know fully well that benefits have reduced and bedroom taxes in social housing and certain incresases in private rents due to shortage of social housing, has lead thousands to in work debt and poverty. And the fact that stagnant wages do not keep up with the overall increases in living costs.

[For Us All]

And the problem with that is?

 

Surely everyone who is unemployed (as opposed to unable to work) should as a very minimum be applying for jobs? Surely it's wrong that hard working people such as yourself should subsidise the lives of people who don't want to take a job cos they think the wages are too low for what they are being asked to do? Surely once in work you stand a better chance of getting a better job later?

 

And I apologise for calling you Shirley :)

 

The trouble is there are 16 types of welfare benefits that are claimable in the UK with too many loopholes that allow people not to work and live comfortably at the taxpayers expense.The system requires a complete overall,they are taking money away from the people who need it most.Here are a few examples.

 

http://www.financetwitter.com/2014/08/its-raining-money-uk-benefits-system-is-so-crazy-you-dont-have-to-work.html

[JOHNNYAITCH]

]Yes you are right to say if there is work available that they should take it but, on the same token they should not be forced to take work which is not right for them.

 

Even if something "right for them" isn't available? People should take what's available so that hard-working people like you are not paying for them to wait for something "right" to come along. They can still look for somthing else whilst working

[JOHNNYAITCH]

If a person leaves unemployment he loses his Unemployment benefit and housing benefit along with his council tax benefit this equates on local levels to at least £210 per month. On minimum wage on a 40 hour week, a person earning £6.50 an hour earns £260 net. With factors such as in work benefits and petrol expenses such as running a car ect I very much doubt that even with the help of in work benefits that it leads to an acceptable level of prosperity.

 

Acceptable to whom? I'd love the min wage to be significantly higher and advocate the living wage instead should be paid. As to a car..don't trun one if you can't afford one..it does not have to be a necessity

 

 

You are asking the wrong person really, for accurate figures, as I have always worked way in excess of 40 hours and £1 above the minimum wage due to the nature of my employment, but I know fully well that benefits have reduced and bedroom taxes in social housing and certain incresases in private rents due to shortage of social housing, has lead thousands to in work debt and poverty. And the fact that stagnant wages do not keep up with the overall increases in living costs.

 

Yes yes we know that..working needs to be made to pay and there are various ways of addressing that..stimulating growth so that there are more jobs,increase wages by increasing demand for labour and look at the benefits bill with a view to reducing it and making being on benfits less attractive to those that choose that option (and thwere are people who choose and you yourself have advocated people should stay on benefist of the offered job isn't right for them. One way is to move people on housing benefits into smaller cheaper housing which is why I agree with the principle of the so called bedroom tax but not how it has been implemented..it's just wrong to price people out of their homes.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The trouble is there are 16 types of welfare benefits that are claimable in the UK with too many loopholes that allow people not to work and live comfortably at the taxpayers expense.The system requires a complete overall,they are taking money away from the people who need it most.Here are a few examples.

 

http://www.financetwitter.com/2014/08/its-raining-money-uk-benefits-system-is-so-crazy-you-dont-have-to-work.html

 

Obvioulsy this should never happen but very much exceptional cases

 

My niece and her husband both work in what was the DHSS in SoT and the bro in law's wife works in the same field in Manchester and they have told me harrowing tales of people suffering and struggling on benefits but they also tell me of what they call large numebrs of claimants who have no intention of working, who are happy being supported by hard working people such as Carl, who know how to milk the system and so on...thos suffering have to be helped but those exploiting those who go to work have to be dealt with too