TESCO - Forced Labour on Starvation Wages

[Robert_S]

...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

[Tyrannical]

Why not force people to work for benefits? If they weren't working they'd be sitting on their ass watching TV anyways.
The company I work for "forces" me to work to receive my "benefits", why should they be any different?

Though I think they should be concentrating on refugees and immigrants for requiring labor to receive benefits.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Why not force people to work for benefits? If they weren't working they'd be sitting on their ass watching TV anyways.
The company I work for "forces" me to work to receive my "benefits", why should they be any different?

Though I think they should be concentrating on refugees and immigrants for requiring labor to receive benefits.

I have no problem with the principal of folks on benefits being required to work - just not for Starvation Wages. One day it could be me, you.....or Seth .

The easy answer would be for TESCO to pay the Min Wage (which is still topped up by the State) - but with the Govt offering TESCO an exemption from some Employment Legislation - especially the bit about not being able to simply fire someone for being a complete f#ckwit, without the risk of an expensive Tribunal / Court case (my guess is that this scheme has that anyway). Maybe some temporary tax breaks. Maybe.

If TESCO want / need employees they will go get them from the market place - introducing a pool of free labour simply removes permanent jobs that would otherwise go to people (and a lot of them the same people).


A different ballgame if TESCO were providing marketable skills.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Well, it's absolutely fucking clear that not a one of you actually bothered to read, much less comprehend the article cited, which said that the ad was a simple mistake and had been withdrawn. The article also points out that the government subsidizes the temporary employment of out-of-work and particularly unskilled new workers with Tesco (and I assume other employers) so that they can gain work experience and will have a leg up at the end of six months by having a guaranteed job interview.

In this way, unemployed persons get government dole money while learning a new job, and the employer is not required to waste money paying full-time minimum wages while training unskilled employees, which induces the employer to hire them in the first place, something they are NOT REQUIRED to do at all.

According to all the numbnutz comments I've seen so far, you all would prefer that the employer simply not hire anyone they don't need and not give anyone without job skills (like immigrants and youth looking for their first job) any sort of job because there's a huge pool of more highly skilled (and therefore more valuable) employees out there to pick and choose from.

Great work!

Now you see why minimum or "living" wage laws don't work, and how they actually increase unemployment and perpetuate it among the unskilled, particularly inner-city youth. Every single time the minimum wage is raised, particularly when unemployment is high, unskilled workers lose ANY hope they have of earning ANY money and getting ANY sort of work experience they can put on a resume or job application.

They don't deserve "minimum wage" because they are not WORTH minimum wage in a glutted labor market. Why on earth would an employer hire an unskilled or new worker for the same wage he can get a more skilled or more mature and experienced worker for? That's fiscal stupidity.

In the good old days, youth entering the labor force were apprenticed to a journeyman or master tradesman and they got room, board and perhaps a little money to spend in return for work as they learned a skill or trade. It was a system that worked well for hundreds if not thousands of years and created legions of master craftsmen and journeymen who got a very low-cost education that exceeded, most of the time, anything offered by public education, and they got it at their own expense, through their own diligence and labor, and they went on to train others in the craft they had learned.

I'm actually quite surprised that the socialist UK actually offers this program, and I wish like hell we would adopt it nationwide over here, because it's a grand idea that offers unskilled and new workers a substantial leg up in becoming gainfully employed, which beats having them sitting around selling crack and making babies.

You all's knee-jerk Marxism would be quite amusing if it weren't so pathetic and dangerous.

Go give your gun a blow-job will you

[Atheist-Lite]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have no problem with the principal of folks on benefits being required to work - just not for Starvation Wages. One day it could be me, you.....or Seth

Seth's a good candidate. He's convinced he's smarter than everyone else.This makes him the perfect target for a con artist.

[MrJonno]

I have no problem with the principal of folks on benefits being required to work - just not for Starvation Wages. One day it could be me, you.....or Seth

Seth's a good candidate. He's convinced he's smarter than everyone else.This makes him the perfect target for a con artist.

Not bright enough to release that those poorer/less intelligent than him outnumber him heavily and it might not be a good idea not to piss them off.
Welfare /minimum wage and other regulation of the free market is what you give people poorer than you to persuade them not to kill you when they get hungry. Of course you could live in a police state and your own personal bunker but most people even the rich realise thats not a great quality of life

[Tyrannical]

Why not force people to work for benefits? If they weren't working they'd be sitting on their ass watching TV anyways.
The company I work for "forces" me to work to receive my "benefits", why should they be any different?

Though I think they should be concentrating on refugees and immigrants for requiring labor to receive benefits.

I have no problem with the principal of folks on benefits being required to work - just not for Starvation Wages. One day it could be me, you.....or Seth .

The easy answer would be for TESCO to pay the Min Wage (which is still topped up by the State) - but with the Govt offering TESCO an exemption from some Employment Legislation - especially the bit about not being able to simply fire someone for being a complete f#ckwit, without the risk of an expensive Tribunal / Court case (my guess is that this scheme has that anyway). Maybe some temporary tax breaks. Maybe.

If TESCO want / need employees they will go get them from the market place - introducing a pool of free labour simply removes permanent jobs that would otherwise go to people (and a lot of them the same people).


A different ballgame if TESCO were providing marketable skills.

I'll explain a few basic and important concepts to you, and in quite a few less words than Seth would

Welfare allows and encourages businesses to pay below a living wage. You could even look to welfare as a "corporate" subsidy because it allows them to pay workers less.
Businesses encourage (il)legal immigrant workers because of simple supply side economics, plus they have lower wage expectations. Especially the illegals. An increasing labor pool with a slower increasing demand causes lower wages. No need to ever pay living wages as long as the government will make up the difference.

[Seth]

Go give your gun a blow-job will you

Does Marx give you a reach-around when you let him bugger you?

[Robert_S]

oops, nevermind

[Azathoth]

Why not force people to work for benefits? If they weren't working they'd be sitting on their ass watching TV anyways.
The company I work for "forces" me to work to receive my "benefits", why should they be any different?

Though I think they should be concentrating on refugees and immigrants for requiring labor to receive benefits.

I have no problem with the principal of folks on benefits being required to work - just not for Starvation Wages. One day it could be me, you.....or Seth .

The easy answer would be for TESCO to pay the Min Wage (which is still topped up by the State) - but with the Govt offering TESCO an exemption from some Employment Legislation - especially the bit about not being able to simply fire someone for being a complete f#ckwit, without the risk of an expensive Tribunal / Court case (my guess is that this scheme has that anyway). Maybe some temporary tax breaks. Maybe.

If TESCO want / need employees they will go get them from the market place - introducing a pool of free labour simply removes permanent jobs that would otherwise go to people (and a lot of them the same people).


A different ballgame if TESCO were providing marketable skills.

I'll explain a few basic and important concepts to you, and in quite a few less words than Seth would

Welfare allows and encourages businesses to pay below a living wage. You could even look to welfare as a "corporate" subsidy because it allows them to pay workers less.
Businesses encourage (il)legal immigrant workers because of simple supply side economics, plus they have lower wage expectations. Especially the illegals. An increasing labor pool with a slower increasing demand causes lower wages. No need to ever pay living wages as long as the government will make up the difference.

This I agree with, top up benefits are bullshit. Minimum wage should reflect living wage. It is not the government's place to pay corporate wages.

[Seth]

Why not force people to work for benefits? If they weren't working they'd be sitting on their ass watching TV anyways.
The company I work for "forces" me to work to receive my "benefits", why should they be any different?

Though I think they should be concentrating on refugees and immigrants for requiring labor to receive benefits.

Indeed. There's endless work for the idle proletarian to be doing; sweeping streets, picking up garbage, mowing parks, watering flowers, hefting bales, hauling barges, cleaning out sewers, painting things, fixing potholes, etc..

And if they have to work for "starvation wages" so much the better, that will induce them to get off welfare all the more quickly.

[Azathoth]

Why not force people to work for benefits? If they weren't working they'd be sitting on their ass watching TV anyways.
The company I work for "forces" me to work to receive my "benefits", why should they be any different?

Though I think they should be concentrating on refugees and immigrants for requiring labor to receive benefits.

Indeed. There's endless work for the idle proletarian to be doing; sweeping streets, picking up garbage, mowing parks, watering flowers, hefting bales, hauling barges, cleaning out sewers, painting things, fixing potholes, etc..

And if they have to work for "starvation wages" so much the better, that will induce them to get off welfare all the more quickly.

But what about the true Epsilons? How will they get a job with living wage if their work is paid at stavation wages to others?

[Seth]

Why not force people to work for benefits? If they weren't working they'd be sitting on their ass watching TV anyways.
The company I work for "forces" me to work to receive my "benefits", why should they be any different?

Though I think they should be concentrating on refugees and immigrants for requiring labor to receive benefits.

I have no problem with the principal of folks on benefits being required to work - just not for Starvation Wages. One day it could be me, you.....or Seth .

Paying you anything just encourages you to remain idle. It would be far better to pay them NOTHING and simply set up government-run soup kitchens and use empty army barracks for housing for the indigent and unemployed. That way sloth, idleness and proletarian dependence is acutely uncomfortable and humiliating (I think they should wear grey uniforms with "Welfare Statist" in large letters on the back at all times too) but not deadly. They would be able to survive, but not at all comfortably, which is a great inducement to getting off welfare.

The easy answer would be for TESCO to pay the Min Wage (which is still topped up by the State) - but with the Govt offering TESCO an exemption from some Employment Legislation - especially the bit about not being able to simply fire someone for being a complete f#ckwit, without the risk of an expensive Tribunal / Court case (my guess is that this scheme has that anyway). Maybe some temporary tax breaks. Maybe.

The easier answer is above. Don't pay anyone who needs government assistance anything, just force them to live in barren conditions, wear humiliating clothing, and eat government-provided meals (shit-on-a-shingle should be enough to drive anyone out of the welfare system, and if it's good enough for our soldiers, it's good enough for welfare leeches) and do filthy, degrading scut-work that society needs done.

If TESCO want / need employees they will go get them from the market place - introducing a pool of free labour simply removes permanent jobs that would otherwise go to people (and a lot of them the same people).


A different ballgame if TESCO were providing marketable skills.

What's not marketable about stocking shelves and sweeping floors? There's plenty of that sort of work that needs to be done.

You want more marketable skills, then pay for your own damned education.

[Seth]

Why not force people to work for benefits? If they weren't working they'd be sitting on their ass watching TV anyways.
The company I work for "forces" me to work to receive my "benefits", why should they be any different?

Though I think they should be concentrating on refugees and immigrants for requiring labor to receive benefits.

Indeed. There's endless work for the idle proletarian to be doing; sweeping streets, picking up garbage, mowing parks, watering flowers, hefting bales, hauling barges, cleaning out sewers, painting things, fixing potholes, etc..

And if they have to work for "starvation wages" so much the better, that will induce them to get off welfare all the more quickly.

But what about the true Epsilons? How will they get a job with living wage if their work is paid at stavation wages to others?

Depends on what you mean by "true Epislons." If by that you mean the mentally or physically handicapped, their jobs are generally make-work jobs not worth the wage being paid now. But if they are truly helpless Epsilons, then they can live in a government-run institution where they can be housed, fed and medicated as needed to provide for their minimum needs. Those jobs are needed to induce welfare leeches to better themselves and become productive citizens. The permanently non-productive who, by virtue of mental or physical handicap, cannot do useful work must be cared for, and there are plenty of charitable organizations to do so who can provide them with make-work to improve their quality of life at private expense.

I'm not worried about them nearly as much as I am about welfare leeches who demand that somebody pay them what they want to be paid for doing things that aren't worth what they are asking. These people need to humble themselves and live a more austere lifestyle (and nobody in the US or the UK starves to death...there's always plenty of charitable food supplies available) commensurate with their proletarian non-aspirations.