PDA

View Full Version : Another reason to cut benefits



BrilloPad
13th September 2013, 02:06
Food prices could go up due to lack of seasonal fruit and veg pickers - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10304780/Food-prices-could-go-up-due-to-lack-of-seasonal-fruit-and-veg-pickers.html)

Food prices could go up because of a lack of seasonal workers, farmers have warned, after the Government refused to allow non-EU migrants into the country to pick fruit and vegetables.

Quite why they allow any migrants in to pick these is beyond me - why aren't benefits slashed until the number of jobs available are filled?

original PM
13th September 2013, 07:16
Food prices could go up due to lack of seasonal fruit and veg pickers - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10304780/Food-prices-could-go-up-due-to-lack-of-seasonal-fruit-and-veg-pickers.html)

Food prices could go up because of a lack of seasonal workers, farmers have warned, after the Government refused to allow non-EU migrants into the country to pick fruit and vegetables.

Quite why they allow any migrants in to pick these is beyond me - why aren't benefits slashed until the number of jobs available are filled?

because that may actually be a good idea...

I comepltely agree -- oh you want benefits certainly sir just go to your local fruit farm for 6 hours a day and pick fruit - you also get to eat some which you may find novel....

Mich the Tester
13th September 2013, 07:33
Quite why they allow any migrants in to pick these is beyond me -

Because people need food and there aren't many people prepared to pick the fruit and veg. Agreed that at least long term unemployed people shouldn't pick and choose their work and could do this, but what bloody use are they to a farmer if they aren't motivated to get the job done?

I agree that benefits people should take the job that's available, but I don't see why a farmer, running his own business, perhaps having made a huge capital investment for a small business, should be forced to work with second rate personnel. None of you would accept that in your businesses, so don't force it on farmers' businesses.

By the way, the Dutch government tried this two years ago; they turned away lots of eastern Europeans at the start of the fruit picking season (cherries first, then others). The policy collapsed after a month where a record cherry harvest ended up rotting on the trees.

vetran
13th September 2013, 07:44
because if they take the seasonal job they lose their benefits for 6 weeks afterwards. As each benefit is applied for separately you then have to pester the benefits office for months to get back to where you were.

The pay from fruit picking is so low they are better off on benefits. Remember they are tax free and certain benefits make a great difference at lower rungs. To me prescription charges are a minor cost to others it is 10% of their take home, same with council tax, if you lose the benefits these become massive costs that you need to pay.

Like cooking curries from pre packaged sauces apparently only certain nationalities can pick certain fruits.

Its a great advert for workfare.

Spacecadet
13th September 2013, 07:54
Because people need food and there aren't many people prepared to pick the fruit and veg. Agreed that at least long term unemployed people shouldn't pick and choose their work and could do this, but what bloody use are they to a farmer if they aren't motivated to get the job done?


Perhaps if it meant the difference putting food on the table or not they would be motivated.

Mich the Tester
13th September 2013, 07:55
Perhaps if it meant the difference putting food on the table or not they would be motivated.

Motivated to do as little work as they can possibly manage to get the wages?

No use to a farmer.

d000hg
13th September 2013, 08:28
because that may actually be a good idea...

I comepltely agree -- oh you want benefits certainly sir just go to your local fruit farm for 6 hours a day and pick fruit - you also get to eat some which you may find novel....If you're picking fruit 6 hours a day you don't need to be on benefits.

vetran
13th September 2013, 08:51
If you're picking fruit 6 hours a day you don't need to be on benefits.

how do you work that out?

£6.19 * 40 = £247 a week 3 months a year. Should pay for the wife & kids to live in a shoebox in the south east and eat once a month.

Mate of mine worked out he needed to be on > £8 an hour to be better off in work. He actually is a very hard worker and wanted to work.

The financial side is important as is the work ethic side.

KentPhilip
13th September 2013, 08:53
Build some fences around the fields, put up some tents and you have a ready-made workhouse for the chavvy benefit scrounger scumbags :D

Ticktock
13th September 2013, 08:57
Motivated to do as little work as they can possibly manage to get the wages?

No use to a farmer.

Surely you would say "Go pick fruit, and we'll give you a top up on your wages so that you're not worse off. Oh, and by the way, **** it up and get fired and you'll get nothing."

The only problem then is regulating the farmers to ensure they don't abuse the fear power they now have over their workers.

Mich the Tester
13th September 2013, 09:00
Surely you would say "Go pick fruit, and we'll give you a top up on your wages so that you're not worse off. Oh, and by the way, **** it up and get fired and you'll get nothing."

The only problem then is regulating the farmers to ensure they don't abuse the fear power they now have over their workers.Would you like your business to work that way?

vetran
13th September 2013, 09:09
Surely you would say "Go pick fruit, and we'll give you a top up on your wages so that you're not worse off. Oh, and by the way, **** it up and get fired and you'll get nothing."


that would be workfare.

even Polly likes it

The Tories were right: workfare really works - Voices - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-tories-were-right-workfare-really-works-1280874.html)

but you need to avoid this :

Workfare Row: Homebase Deny Using Work Experience Staff To Cut Costs (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/05/homebase-workfare-work-experience-staff-_n_3020487.html)

d000hg
13th September 2013, 09:14
how do you work that out?

£6.19 * 40 = £247 a week 3 months a year. Should pay for the wife & kids to live in a shoebox in the south east and eat once a month.Um, you'd still be on benefits the other 9 months. My point was forcing people to work and then giving them benefits is effectively a prison work release scheme... great for the businesses who get free labour.

Tell them they have to work when work is available or they won't get benefits the rest of the time, but pay them a fair wage for the work they are forced to do.

Ticktock
13th September 2013, 09:17
Would you like your business to work that way?

Would I like my business to work in a way that my employees are paid the market rate for their role, but if this is below the amount they would get on benefits then the government tops it up, and if my employees are a bunch of workshy ****wits then I can sack them?

Sure, sounds good to me. What's your issue with it?

lilelvis2000
13th September 2013, 09:27
Another Tory brain wave!!!! Next up sending all foreign doctors and nurses in the NHS back home.

Mich the Tester
13th September 2013, 09:31
Would I like my business to work in a way that my employees are paid the market rate for their role, but if this is below the amount they would get on benefits then the government tops it up, and if my employees are a bunch of workshy ****wits then I can sack them?

Sure, sounds good to me. What's your issue with it?

Two issues; I don't think businesses should be foreced to employ substandard employees to help government policies, and I don't think businesses should sponge off the state by calculating that benefits can top up the wages. I find it ludicrous that people are getting more benefits than they could earn in a paid job, unless of course they are genuinely unable to work because of disability.

If your employees are workshy ****wits, yes, I believe you should be able to sack them.

Ticktock
13th September 2013, 09:46
Two issues; I don't think businesses should be foreced to employ substandard employees to help government policies, and I don't think businesses should sponge off the state by calculating that benefits can top up the wages. I find it ludicrous that people are getting more benefits than they could earn in a paid job, unless of course they are genuinely unable to work because of disability.

If your employees are workshy ****wits, yes, I believe you should be able to sack them.

But that's not what I'm saying.
Ignore for the moment that if I were a fruit farmer, then I need unskilled labour to pick fruit. A job commonly taken by teenagers / early 20s to get a little cash in whilst they go travelling in Australia (my wife and a couple of cousins all did it). Note the word unskilled - this is a difficult job to **** up.

Fruit picking has a market rate, like any other job. That market rate may well be the National Minimum Wage. If the NMW is below what people can get in benefits then it's not my job to top that up. Of course, wages are driven down by the ready supply of labour.
I agree, it's ludicrous if people can get more money by not working than by working - I can't see any justification for JSA exceeding 37.5 hours at NWM. By the way, it doesn't. Of course, there are people who wouldn't dream of going out and doing physical labour, even if it means more money, if they can survive comfortably while sitting on their arses.

BrilloPad
13th September 2013, 09:47
Surely you would say "Go pick fruit, and we'll give you a top up on your wages so that you're not worse off. Oh, and by the way, **** it up and get fired and you'll get nothing."

The only problem then is regulating the farmers to ensure they don't abuse the fear power they now have over their workers.

Tesco kicks the farmers. Surely they should be able to pass it on?

Spacecadet
13th September 2013, 09:50
Two issues; I don't think businesses should be foreced to employ substandard employees to help government policies, and I don't think businesses should sponge off the state by calculating that benefits can top up the wages. I find it ludicrous that people are getting more benefits than they could earn in a paid job, unless of course they are genuinely unable to work because of disability.

If your employees are workshy ****wits, yes, I believe you should be able to sack them.

Heavan forbid anyone should get sacked for being shit

Mich the Tester
13th September 2013, 09:52
Tesco kicks the farmers. Surely they should be able to pass it on?

The other thing you could also consider doing is buying your fruit and veg from a local farm shop, if you can afford it; I know some people can't afford to pay a bit more for food, but food costs in the western world have become very very low since the war; that's part of the reason for obesity, but it's also pushing farmers in some parts of Europe to despair. Supermarkets can be real bastards in this; farmers who try price fixing will be hammered, but somehow purchasing oligopolies or purchase price fixing go unpunished.

lilelvis2000
13th September 2013, 09:55
I'd argue that food prices are artificially high due to vast farm subsidies by Europe and USA mainly. I'd wager that Food produced in Africa could be shipped here and still be cheaper that food grown here without subsidies.

amcdonald
13th September 2013, 09:58
I agree, it's ludicrous if people can get more money by not working than by working - I can't see any justification for JSA exceeding 37.5 hours at NWM. By the way, it doesn't. Of course, there are people who wouldn't dream of going out and doing physical labour, even if it means more money, if they can survive comfortably while sitting on their arses.

It's not just JSA, add in council tax, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free school meals, cheap lesiure centre membership etc

d000hg
13th September 2013, 09:58
I can't see any justification for JSA exceeding 37.5 hours at NWM. By the way, it doesn't. JSA isn't the only benefit. If you are getting housing benefit, this is far more and that isn't one you'd want to lose... especially since it typically takes the council months to sort it out when you claim. Coming off DSS for 2 months to work means you might not get it again for 4 months, and 2 months' rent on no income is a pretty desperate scenario.

If you're set up on full benefits, you need to be fairly happy the work on offer is going to last.

Mich the Tester
13th September 2013, 09:59
I'd argue that food prices are artificially high due to vast farm subsidies by Europe and USA mainly. I'd wager that Food produced in Africa could be shipped here and still be cheaper that food grown here without subsidies.

No, they're artificially low for many products; both broiler chicken and meat chicken farmers in Africa are going bust due to cheap factory farm imports from Europe. Some veg is grown cheaply in Africa, especially Tanzania, Uganda and Sout Africa; Zimbabwe use to export a lot of food and was in fact known as the bread basket of Africa until Bob Mugabe decided to ruin the place. Nigeria is now stepping up production by attracting farmers who've given up in Zim.

BrilloPad
13th September 2013, 10:00
I'd argue that food prices are artificially high due to vast farm subsidies by Europe and USA mainly. I'd wager that Food produced in Africa could be shipped here and still be cheaper that food grown here without subsidies.

Food prices of lardy stuff(chocolate, burgers, nuggets etc.) are cheap. Healthy stuff and basics(lettuce, bread, milk) are very expensive.

When have you ever seen 2 for 1 on cos?

lilelvis2000
13th September 2013, 10:03
No, they're artificially low for many products; both broiler chicken and meat chicken farmers in Africa are going bust due to cheap factory farm imports from Europe. Some veg is grown cheaply in Africa, especially Tanzania, Uganda and Sout Africa; Zimbabwe use to export a lot of food and was in fact known as the bread basket of Africa until Bob Mugabe decided to ruin the place. Nigeria is now stepping up production by attracting farmers who've given up in Zim.

Paid for by you and I by the vast subsidies that keep prices here high and subsidise the prices of exports. I seem to recall a story once where rich farmers in Africa were going bust due to cheap imports of subsidised American rice.

The system is broken.

vetran
13th September 2013, 10:05
the reality is that the vast majority of short term (<12 months) unemployed just need to be left alone or lightly assisted to get a job.
Those over 12 months need retraining and assistance to become confident enough to get a job.
Those over 24 months need to be forced back to work in some way.

this is for run of the mill claimants, the sick need different handling, not necessarily AToS(Sers).

However workfare can be used as cheap labour so we need to avoid that.

Even Polly said that workfare halved the claimants. We need that because we have too many.

I don't see fruit picking as a good workfare job, they need to be non profit organisations to avoid suggestions of abuse. Hopefully though if we get benefits right and avoid imported labour undercutting fruit picking will become attractive again. Or it will go away by using better technology.

And no you don't get the benefits the other 9 months, you took work so you have to wait the requisite period, wait for the claim to be handled etc. Also you may have to fight to get all your benefits back. Taking a job is made to be a huge risk when entrenched on benefits to stop rich people claiming when their contract ends.

vetran
13th September 2013, 10:08
When have you ever seen 2 for 1 on cos?

yes in Lidl. Don't put all the blame on farmers the supermarkets see fresh food as very profitable.

Old Hack
13th September 2013, 10:09
I'd like to see welfare claimants work in their local parish on projects likely to enhance their area i.e. clearing scrubland, making the parks better, street cleaning, small DIY things. Things that they could actively benefit from in their local community. You get the bonus of working, and doing something good, which would keep the spirits higher. I'd also opt for a two tier system; #1 Breadline, for those who don't wish to participate in the work, and #2 Higher for those who do.

d000hg
13th September 2013, 10:15
Food prices of lardy stuff(chocolate, burgers, nuggets etc.) are cheap. Healthy stuff and basics(lettuce, bread, milk) are very expensive.

When have you ever seen 2 for 1 on cos?You get veg on offer all the time.

Also, the basics are not expensive. ‘Below The Line’ Budget Recipes « A GIRL CALLED JACK (http://agirlcalledjack.com/category/below-the-line-budget-recipes/)

I know people who have a weekly shopping budget for groceries of £10 for the two of them, and cook from scratch.

Ticktock
13th September 2013, 10:25
You get veg on offer all the time.

Also, the basics are not expensive. ‘Below The Line’ Budget Recipes « A GIRL CALLED JACK (http://agirlcalledjack.com/category/below-the-line-budget-recipes/)

I know people who have a weekly shopping budget for groceries of £10 for the two of them, and cook from scratch.

After a redudancy with no payout my wife and I were surviving on £10 a week for groceries. And this was from Tesco, using a mix of cheapy blue-strip and regular items. It's not all that difficult. Sure, my limited cooking skills led to some repetition, but it's doable. 1 big dish (like macaroni cheese or a meatloaf) will last 2 or three days, supplemented by things like veg risotto, pasta, chilli, etc, gets you through the week.

Mich the Tester
13th September 2013, 10:43
Paid for by you and I by the vast subsidies that keep prices here high and subsidise the prices of exports. I seem to recall a story once where rich farmers in Africa were going bust due to cheap imports of subsidised American rice.

The system is broken.

No and yes. No, the subsidies keep our prices low but we end up paying more in ludicrous high tax rates. Yes, the system's broken.

Old Hack
13th September 2013, 10:48
Simply put, not matter how cheap you could live healthy, I could live cheaper unhealthier, and I think that's the problem.

If you look at the price of filth in supermarkets against the price of healthy stuff, that's evident.

Around this part of the work, this time of year is interesting, as all sorts of produce is put outside houses for sale. Yesterday, saw 3 lbs toms, 2 cucumbers, a jar of pickled onions, a large cabbage, 2 courgettes and 6 duck eggs for £4.50.

vetran
13th September 2013, 10:49
I'd like to see welfare claimants work in their local parish on projects likely to enhance their area i.e. clearing scrubland, making the parks better, street cleaning, small DIY things. Things that they could actively benefit from in their local community. You get the bonus of working, and doing something good, which would keep the spirits higher. I'd also opt for a two tier system; #1 Breadline, for those who don't wish to participate in the work, and #2 Higher for those who do.

Agreed, there are a lot of projects that wouldn't cost a lot or displace workers.

just getting them out working would remove a lot of the fraud which I suspect is endemic.

Old Hack
13th September 2013, 10:55
Agreed, there are a lot of projects that wouldn't cost a lot or displace workers.

just getting them out working would remove a lot of the fraud which I suspect is endemic.

You'd certainly reduce the pool of suspects.

I think it would benefit any parish to get people giving it a lick and spit to be honest. Planting trees, painting benches, clearing little, etc, etc etc

doodab
13th September 2013, 10:56
I think it would benefit any parish to get people giving it a lick and spit to be honest.

You can't make them work in glory holes, even if they are adapted confession booths.

Paddy
13th September 2013, 11:24
how do you work that out?

£6.19 * 40 = £247 a week 3 months a year. Should pay for the wife & kids to live in a shoebox in the south east and eat once a month.

Mate of mine worked out he needed to be on > £8 an hour to be better off in work. He actually is a very hard worker and wanted to work.

The financial side is important as is the work ethic side.

The problem can be easily solved by employing half a dozen well paid girls to pick the fruit naked. There will be a queue of volunteers to help.

doodab
13th September 2013, 11:26
The problem can be easily solved by employing half a dozen well paid girls to pick the fruit naked. There will be a queue of volunteers hoping to have their plums harvested.

FTFY

eek
13th September 2013, 11:40
You'd certainly reduce the pool of suspects.

I think it would benefit any parish to get people giving it a lick and spit to be honest. Planting trees, painting benches, clearing little, etc, etc etc

problem is that is what people do when sentenced to community service. How would you go about making that look like something else for the unemployed?

Ticktock
13th September 2013, 11:41
problem is that is what people do when sentenced to community service. How would you go about making that look like something else for the unemployed?

Orange jumpsuits and a ball & chain?

vetran
13th September 2013, 11:42
problem is that is what people do when sentenced to community service. How would you go about making that look like something else for the unemployed?

it is an issue. But then it would be no fun if it were easy.

I was all for the Joe Arpio style community service.

eek
13th September 2013, 11:43
Orange jumpsuits and a ball & chain?

For the unemployed volunteers?

Dominic Connor
13th September 2013, 11:47
One of the interesting inputs to this is farmers own views.

They are unhappy at EU workers being allowed freely into the UK, which is not what you'd expect.

Turns out that Eastern European workers used to be only allowed in to work in designated occupations which included crop picking. Apparently this was true for years before we even joined the EEC as as it was then.

Now that E.Europeans can do any job that someone will pay them to do then the minimum or sub minimum wage of picking fruit, etc doesn't attract. So farmers must pay more for labour which means they can't always buy the latest Range Rover as soon as it comes out.

A problem with trying to get people on benefits to do this work is that (surprise) fields are out in the country and farmers are very averse to even minimum wage pay which means that the cost of transport would be economically stupid.

Also there is a profound difference in the productivity in manual stoop labour of a fit motivated 18 yo from another country and a fat 50 year old brit who has been sent there upon threat of losing benefits, frankly if you tried to get me to keep being over to pick fruit, I'd be in (expensive) hospital in a week.

If you want to spend less on benefits, first you must spend more money on benefit recipients.

Childcare is insanely expensive and bad, often they won't hold the kids after 6PM, some will call child protection if you're not there by 6:15, yes, really. That's even before the fact that you have to somehow get kids from school to the childcare, because local councils are so awful it is politically impossible to use them as places to care for kids whilst their parents work (shock !) after 5:30.

This costs money.

Many benefitters have inadequate education, either no skills or ones that no one will pay for. By making benefits contingent upon attending classes or taking part in remote learning, we could have a more skilled workforce with lower unemployment.,

This also costs money

Also if we are going to pay mothers to be at home, then we should treat them like people we pay and set objectives that have rewards. Across the world the single biggest factor in the educational outcome of a child is the education level of the mother. I estimate that it took something like 150 hours to teach each of my kids their alphabet, to that we add colours, some numeracy, etc. We're not talking here about the way at 8, one of my kids had enough understanding of philosophy to decide that he had no free will, instead we should incentivise with money mothers (and occasional fathers) to prep their kids for school which nearly all are capable of. Where they are not, then the education above can be applied to the parent. Paying (say) £1,000 quid to a parent who ensures their kid knows letters, can count to 20, colours, identify some basic words will seriously improve things.
It is shocking and fixable that many kids turn up barely able to speak and not even toilet trained.

Its harder to deal with the benefitters that everyone affects to hate, the workshy, compulsory education will help that a bit since unless they put some effort in to their education, their money will drop. Some of these wll decide that working a till at Asda is less hassle than being force fed basic Excel skills.

A bit thing that neither the Daily Mail, nor Guardian readers really think through is that even the most unskilled workshy and stroppy Brit on minimum wage costs more than 85% of the world earn. The only way we can even hope to sustain this is by increased skills, not just harder core C++ gurus, but across the whole work spectrum.

A bit thing that neither the Daily Mail, nor Guardian readers really think through is that even the most unskilled workshy and stroppy Brit on minimum wage costs more than 85% of the world earn. The only way we can even hope to sustain this is by increased skills, not just harder core C++ gurus, but across the whole work spectrum.

Spacecadet
13th September 2013, 11:55
tl;dr

A bit thing that neither the Daily Mail, nor Guardian readers really think through is that even the most unskilled workshy and stroppy Brit on minimum wage costs more than 85% of the world earn. The only way we can even hope to sustain this is by increased skills, not just harder core C++ gurus, but across the whole work spectrum.

A bit thing that neither the Daily Mail, nor Guardian readers really think through is that even the most unskilled workshy and stroppy Brit on minimum wage costs more than 85% of the world earn. The only way we can even hope to sustain this is by increased skills, not just harder core C++ gurus, but across the whole work spectrum.

worst thing about copy and pasting is that any mistakes in the original are replicated in the copy

eek
13th September 2013, 11:57
worst thing about not proof reading is that numerous mistakes are left for people to pick on

FTFY HTH

vetran
13th September 2013, 12:42
but he does make a good point, we are still very well paid compared to the rest of the world, changes are coming.

Spacecadet
13th September 2013, 12:44
but he does make a good point, we are still very well paid compared to the rest of the world, changes are coming.

Who made a good point?

You need to make sure you compare apples with apples.
Compare London to Singapore, New York, Hong Kong etc... and you'll find the difference overall (not just the actual amount you are paid) is about the same.

vetran
13th September 2013, 12:48
Who made a good point?

You need to make sure you compare apples with apples.
Compare London to Singapore, New York, Hong Kong etc... and you'll find the difference overall (not just the actual amount you are paid) is about the same.

Dominic.

And we aren't comparing with other MEDCs its LEDCs all the way baby.

Its a race to the bottom and I don't mean NLYUK stylee.