Not only that, certain big employers like Tesco don't offer full-time work at all (at least at entry level). Pretty much anyone who's been working in a Tesco supermarket for less than 15 years now will be on a part-time contract.
It was happening 30 years ago when I had my first supermarket job. While there were a few full-timers on the shop floor (not counting supervisor or department managers), most people were on part-time contracts. I started out on 16 hours and regularly worked 38.5 (15 minutes short of the 39 that would have entitled me to time-and-a-third for Saturdays, funnily enough...).
For someone to work full-time hours these days they often need to have two or more jobs. That's all fine and dandy if you're able to get fixed shift patterns and are able to slot them together, but employers often require staff to be available across the full range of operating hours and they're generally not too happy if you explain that the rota they've given you clashes with your other job.
This is where "job creation" type schemes might help. if the Council is down a few cleaners at a time it's probably not that great an issue. We get cleaner streets and people in this position get better self esteem.
What's this obsession with getting people to clean streets, bogs and parks? I'm not denigrating anyone who does these jobs, but it'd be far better to find someone an employment placement that matches their skills and could possibly lead to further qualifications.
I think that may be worth accepting, though how we make people accept it is an interesting challenge. But think of it this way - there's no real reason I in IT (say) should be paid more than a bricky in terms of effort, but I am. Taxing me and subsidising the bricky just evens out some unfairness (as well as building more much needed houses
).
A bricklayer is a skilled tradesperson and probably earns more than you think. Or are you just assuming that they get paid less than you because they're working class?
A perfectly normal family is one who brings up civil, well educated children and which behaves civilly in public e.g. not effing and blinding at their offspring all the way round Asda (and don't pretend that stereotype doesn't exist, as if you go to Asda on any Saturday morning there will be at least one such family). We shouldn't pretend that there are an awful lot of families living in Council estates to whom this does not apply. Plenty who it does of course who often have a hard time of things as a result!
Funny you should mention the word "stereotype", because that's all you have to go on. How do you know that the family you see in Asda lives on a council estate? Uncivilised behaviour in public isn't limited to the "underclass". There are plenty of "perfectly normal families" who live on council estates and who would also be appalled at such behaviour.
I don't agree. Council estates as a concept have been proven not to work for years. That's why interspersing social housing among owned estates is pretty much the only system used these days, except a few edge cases.
Citation, please. While there are clear examples of bad housing estates, they're not all no-go hellholes. I've been to plenty of places where tenants take pride in their houses and you would hardly know the difference between them and houses that were owner-occupied. In any case, just because a house has been purchased from the council doesn't mean that it's actually occupied by the owner; quite often these places are buy-to-let where the tenants tend to be a bit more transient and aren't as invested in keeping the place looking as nice.
That's the problem and you can't write it off. In middle class areas of owner occupation these things aren't rife, in social housing they very often are. This shouldn't just be accepted - we need to find ways to prevent it, which is going to be a combination of education, improving prospects but also stronger policing and strict punishment.
Addiction isn't limited to council estates and to suggest that it simply doesn't happen in middle-class areas is just rubbish; they just have middle-class addictions instead. As for anti-social behaviour, it's certainly not the preserve of the lower classes; Bullingdon club, anyone?
Most processes can be circumvented or avoided but that doesn't stop us implementing them. The amount of people who dodge car insurance for example is eye-watering - but we don't abandon it. In this case, I am sure with the threat of significant sanctions there will be a deterrent. Perhaps the use of the card can be limited to the main supermarkets so close tabs can be maintained on what such individuals are buying - AI could be used to do a 100% review of all purchases.
Good grief! This is proper Big Brother stuff. Is there anything else that you'd like to restrict? Now that people can't relax with a beer, maybe they'll just have a wee biscuit or a cake to go with their cuppa. Oh no, you've banned them too, along with the cuppa.
What sanctions are you proposing and to deter what, exactly? Someone trying to buy a bottle of beer? Who is going to police it? Oh, AI...
How much is this AI system going to cost? It won't be cheap, that's for sure. Who is going to pay for DWP staff to manually carry out reviews when the AI system inevitably hallucinates and someone ends up being sanctioned for buying a product that isn't on the banned list?
Your idea of limiting the card to "main supermarkets" is also ludicrous. Are we just talking about the big four (Asda, Morrison's, Sainsbury's and Tesco)? Are people to be permitted to shop at Aldi or Lidl, where goods are a bit cheaper? Is the Co-op allowed? What happens if your nearest "main shop" is 20 miles away? Does this card permit online shopping? Is it accepted on public transport?
It would get them out and about so probably a good thing?
Wow. How patronising can you get? Of course, in your world everyone is glued firmly to the couch watching Sky on their massive tellies.
Real life is going to work and getting paid. Not getting free handouts paid by others who are going to work.
You'd better tell those whose only income is the state pension, then.
Have you considered the possibility that some people do voluntary work while they're between jobs, or perhaps can't do paid work because they're caring for elderly or sick relatives? In the first instance it's not paid work, but it's still contributing to society. In the latter case people can claim carers' allowance, but it's a pittance; it very much is contributing to society and actually saves the state a fortune (an absolute bargain at maximum of £2.47 per hour).
I think it's you who needs to get out and about. I mean in the real world, not cloud cuckoo land.
Something can be worth bringing under control without needing to cast society into some needless distinction between "good guys" and "villains". Emotion has no place in public policy, IMO.
Agreed, but the problem is that too many people are willing to apply the "villain" tag without having any grasp of reality. If it was that easy to get people into work, we'd have done it by now. Until we can get people re-trained or get the medical treatment that people need to get into the workplace, it's simply not viable to cut, cut and cut some more. Cutting someone's benefit by 30% isn't going to magically find them a job; if anything it'll actually make finding a job more difficult as folk have less money to spend on things like internet access and travel costs.
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to keep emotion out of the equation when people like Kemi Badenoch come up with hare-brained ideas and others rub their hands with glee and say that it's not enough!
