'Smart cards' plan to stop benefits being spent on drink

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Collectively doing what? Just doing their jobs really well and becoming invaluable to their employer? In which case I agree.

Standing together when they feel something is wrong.

 

[scaramanga]

Standing together when they feel something is wrong.

Standing together in the queue to clock in?

Just say what you're trying to avoid saying - that you think people should refuse to work and blackmail their employer, distorting the market in the process.

People who do that are the lowest of the low. Pure scum. Not only should they be sacked, but anyone sacked for taking industrial action should be restricted from claiming any kind of benefits.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Standing together in the queue to clock in?

Just say what you're trying to avoid saying - that you think people should refuse to work and blackmail their employer, distorting the market in the process.

People who do that are the lowest of the low. Pure scum. Not only should they be sacked, but anyone sacked for taking industrial action should be restricted from claiming any kind of benefits.

Pah,says the man who would argue that companies can blackmail their staff into not being into a union. Or companies blackmailing countries they will leave if there is any regulation what so ever. Or blackmailing a country over tax laws.

You are not above blackmail,not in the slightest.

 

[scaramanga]

Pah,says the man who would argue that companies can blackmail their staff into not being into a union. Or companies blackmailing countries they will leave if there is any regulation what so ever. Or blackmailing a country over tax laws.

You are not above blackmail,not in the slightest.

That's not blackmail, that's. just choosing the best market in which to operate.

The employee equivalent of that is having a quiet word with your boss that you think you're worth more and could probably get it elsewhere. A method with which I have no issue whatsoever.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

That's not blackmail, that's. just choosing the best market in which to operate.

The employee equivalent of that is having a quiet word with your boss that you think you're worth more and could probably get it elsewhere. A method with which I have no issue whatsoever.

The workers are choosing a more effective method. Most union methods do not involve strikes. Anyway like I said I am out,actually talking and engaging with voters this morning.

 

[scaramanga]

The workers are choosing a more effective method. Most union methods do not involve strikes. Anyway like I said I am out,actually talking and engaging with voters this morning.

Don't waste your time - the people who would support your POV will never have any power.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Don't waste your time - the people who would support your POV will never have any power.

The same could be said about the team I am supporting later. Win or lose,I stand up for what I believe in. That is better and improved conditions for the majority of this country.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

The same could be said about the team I am supporting later. Win or lose,I stand up for what I believe in. That is better and improved conditions for the majority of this country.

haha LOL yep supporting spurs is a bloody pointless task sometimes aint it. I come from different ends of the political spectrum to you paxton and I never kiss ****(well once but we wont go into that now) but I do admire people who stand by their beliefs and when those beliefs are spurred by the will for everyone to do better.

I think I have the same as you but from a different angle. As for today I have layed us on betfair as I can not see us getting a result against Southampton after a Europa league game.

 

[the dza]

You mean mob rule? As far as I'm concerned there's no place in any business for union members - I certainly wouldn't employ one and if I found an employee had joined one they'd see the door very soon after.

Then you'd get sued for unfair dismissal.

https://www.gov.uk/join-trade-union/trade-union-membership-your-employment-rights

https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/unfair-and-constructive-dismissal

Why would someone who employs others ignore that consequence/not know of it? You're not doing a Walter Mitty are you? :lol:

 

[scaramanga]

Then you'd get sued for unfair dismissal.

https://www.gov.uk/join-trade-union/trade-union-membership-your-employment-rights

https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/unfair-and-constructive-dismissal

Why would someone who employs others ignore that consequence/not know of it? You're not doing a Walter Mitty are you? :lol:

I'm neither ignoring nor unaware of it, simply able to work around it like most obstacles in business.

Is anyone really dumb enough to tell an employee they're being sacked for being in a union? It happens all the time in every industry I've ever worked in and nobody ever gets caught out.

Union types always make themselves very sackable - they're always the ones that do the bare minimum with the least effort. There are all kinds of performance-based reasons to get rid of union types - they leave themselves wide open. Failing that, it's pretty easy to constructively dismiss an employee without them ever realising it's happening - you just have to be clever, patient and good at game theory.

 

[monkeybarry]

Get a room you two!

Sweeping statement - I don't think someone who is unemployed and claiming JSA should be able to buy alcohol, cigarettes or lottery personally. Why should they be able to? Luxuries like these should be earned not handed out to so this is a good move.

That depends entirely on the, subjective, definition of luxury.
If someone, working or claiming benefits, has £40 to spend on food one week they can make a variety of choices.
You could buy basics pasta, some veg, some cereal,milk and only spend £15 - leaving £25 to spend on cigarettes and lottery.
In your view, that persons budgeting is wrong.

Alternatively they buy steaks and Tesco finest, crisps and things with high sugar content, taking their spend to £40.
How is this more acceptable?

The public cost is still the same.

How about we focus on getting people working rather than trying to control people.
By all means take measures for people not making an effort, but don't try and control personal lifestyle tastes, unless those lifestyle tastes directly affect the economy

 

[Roy1983]

You know what Scara I've had the misfortune to work with about a dozen union members. All take time off sick, all put less effort in and all have this 'I've got the company over a barrel' mentality. Now 12 out of how ever many thousand is a small percentage but maybe you're onto something!!!!

 

[the dza]

I'm neither ignoring nor unaware of it, simply able to work around it like most obstacles in business.

Is anyone really dumb enough to tell an employee they're being sacked for being in a union? It happens all the time in every industry I've ever worked in and nobody ever gets caught out.

Union types always make themselves very sackable - they're always the ones that do the bare minimum with the least effort. There are all kinds of performance-based reasons to get rid of union types - they leave themselves wide open. Failing that, it's pretty easy to constructively dismiss an employee without them ever realising it's happening - you just have to be clever, patient and good at game theory.

To paraphrase:

It's not your sacking of an employee for exercising their right to join a union that I find offensive, it's your pride in having twisted the system to dismiss that employee and circumvent the rules.

Still, I'm sure in all cases of unfair dismissal where it is found that an employer dismissed an employee for trade union membership, the employer was always very open about their motive and in no way tried to hide the real reasons for dismissal.

 

[Roy1983]

That depends entirely on the, subjective, definition of luxury.
If someone, working or claiming benefits, has £40 to spend on food one week they can make a variety of choices.
You could buy basics pasta, some veg, some cereal,milk and only spend £15 - leaving £25 to spend on cigarettes and lottery.
In your view, that persons budgeting is wrong.

Alternatively they buy steaks and Tesco finest, crisps and things with high sugar content, taking their spend to £40.
How is this more acceptable?

The public cost is still the same.

How about we focus on getting people working rather than trying to control people.
By all means take measures for people not making an effort, but don't try and control personal lifestyle tastes, unless those lifestyle tastes directly affect the economy

Completely disagree with the concept of your post. If people can't be bothered to work then people shouldn't have luxuries such as booze or cigarettes. It's just THAT simple IMO.

 

[Baleforce]

That depends entirely on the, subjective, definition of luxury.
If someone, working or claiming benefits, has £40 to spend on food one week they can make a variety of choices.
You could buy basics pasta, some veg, some cereal,milk and only spend £15 - leaving £25 to spend on cigarettes and lottery.
In your view, that persons budgeting is wrong.

Alternatively they buy steaks and Tesco finest, crisps and things with high sugar content, taking their spend to £40.
How is this more acceptable?

The public cost is still the same.

How about we focus on getting people working rather than trying to control people.
By all means take measures for people not making an effort, but don't try and control personal lifestyle tastes, unless those lifestyle tastes directly affect the economy

that's not what this is about, it's about the bloke who's 3 kids are at home starving whilst he spends it all in the bookies and the off license

 

[Roy1983]

that's not what this is about, it's about the bloke who's 3 kids are at home starving whilst he spends it all in the bookies and the off license

Something I used to see day in day out when I worked for William Hill. ***** for human beings.

 

[the dza]

Something I used to see day in day out when I worked for William Hill. ***** for human beings.

I agree, that is sh1t and those people are scummy. But...what is to stop such a degenerate gambler buying £40 of meat (as it's on his 'allowed' list) then going and selling that for £25 quid, and then sticking the £25 on a horse? Nothing. And that's what they would do.

Shoplifters sell b*ll**** stuff like that all the time (often coz they are smackheads), and the sort of addicts who'd get given these cards would live in areas where people will gladly buy cheap goods off of them.

Right, gonna watch our game now...

 

[monkeybarry]

Completely disagree with the concept of your post. If people can't be bothered to work then people shouldn't have luxuries such as booze or cigarettes. It's just THAT simple IMO.

I agree with you in principle,however I want to know how you achieve it practically and fairly.

And the core to that is defining "luxury"

 

[monkeybarry]

Something I used to see day in day out when I worked for William Hill. ***** for human beings.

And I agree Roy and gale force that it is scummy - but should be dealt with by social services, not repressive, draconian measures than are not representative of the majority of claimants

 

[scaramanga]

To paraphrase:

It's not your sacking of an employee for exercising their right to join a union that I find offensive, it's your pride in having twisted the system to dismiss that employee and circumvent the rules.

Still, I'm sure in all cases of unfair dismissal where it is found that an employer dismissed an employee for trade union membership, the employer was always very open about their motive and in no way tried to hide the real reasons for dismissal.

Lol, touche!

If I'm not angering union member, " the world owes me a living" types then I'm doing it wrong.

Clever employers will never even get taken to tribunal for that kind of tidying of the workforce.