Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Remploy

Active labour market meaures - i.e force eveyone off dole and into shit paid, temp revolving door work in crap condtions with no safety or union back up. Nice...I thought you knew all about this though as you recommended it and your party is introducing it in an extreme form. It only applies to the feckless bottom 1/3 like me though so i wouldn't worry - i'm sure Keir wouldn't either. Too thick to clean your toilets aren't we, but with your help..
 
butchersapron said:
Active labour market meaures - i.e force eveyone off dole and into shit paid, temp revolving door work in crap condtions with no safety or union back up. Nice...I thought you knew all about this though as you recommended it and your party is introducing it in an extreme form. It onlu applis to the bottom 1/3 like me though so i wouldn't worry - i'm sure Keir wouldn't either.
Thank you. I don't claim to be an expert, and I am familiar with different terminology, as are you which is you asked me to explain what I meant by "employability".

How would achieving an 80% employment target "force everybody" off the dole?

If you want to do some good, support efforts to unionise unorganised workers and support Labour at the next election to stop the Tories getting in with John Redwood's policies to end health and safety rights and inevitably equalities laws and the national minimum wage.

Or "the left" could carry on moping about how horrible the Labour Government is and it would be no different if the Tories got in and what we need is a revolution. Because that is definitely helping. Oh yes.
 
Fullyplumped said:
Thank you. I don't claim to be an expert, and I am familiar with different terminology, as are you which is you asked me to explain what I meant by "employability".

How would achieving an 80% employment target "force everybody" off the dole?

It would move upwards from the current rate, so draw your own conclusions (ignore all my points though). But again you won't have done basic research and just apppluded it because it's labour.

When exactly did you give up politics FP?
 
Fullyplumped said:
Well I can't argue with that conclusive debating point. I understand that your ability to hone an argument finely is famous in these parts.

It's the terminology that offends me. "Remploy," "Workforce Plus," "Employability Agenda." Makes me sick it does.
 
phildwyer said:
It's the terminology that offends me. "Remploy," "Workforce Plus," "Employability Agenda." Makes me sick it does.
If it helps, I agree with you about the terminology. Labour heroes like Keir Hardie, Nye Bevan, George Foulkes - they'd never be caught dead using such language. I like the French term "activation", which means more-or-less the same thing. And we have "community animators", support workers who have experienced long-term unemployment themselves and whose job is to engage directly with people not in work and encourage them to take first steps, like find out about college courses, try out "better-off-in-work" calculations, do health improvement stuff, and so on.
 
Fullyplumped said:
If it helps, I agree with you about the terminology.

Good. But I'm afraid there's more. I also don't like all this making people work malarky. Why not just take the rich people's money and give it to the unemployed so they can have decent lives without having to clean toilets? Answer me that if you can.
 
Well, first of all, many of the people cleaning toilets now will want to move on to do other things, so there will always be a need for people to clean toilets. And it's against health and safety not to have clean toilets cos of the bloody Labour government.

And secondly, why should people who are working and paying tax pay people who could be working but would rather not work if they had to clean toilets? If we're going to expropriate the assets of rich people surely that should go to benefit working people and reduce their taxes so they can have decent lives and be invested in public services to create jobs (including cleaning jobs) instead of going to people who could work but just find it irksome.
 
Gettting back to the purpose of the thread....

... the thing about Remploy is that it provides "real jobs" for long-term disabled people in a sheltered setting.

The argument against that is that there are lots more disabled people much further away from employability, that disabled people enjoy legal rights against discrimination that weren't there when Remploy was set up, that in many parts of the UK the prospect of employment is better than before, and that the money used to support the Remploy workers could do more good elsewhere.

Remploy obviously sees it differently, and I think they've probably taken on this PR firm because the Board want to make a proper fight of it. They're certainly being tough with business units that aren't performing.

  • Remploy Hillington, which undertakes general contract manufacturing work, was opened in 1984
  • Five years ago 51 people worked at the site which now employs 39 people, of whom 35 are disabled
  • In the last financial year it lost £684,000 or £19,542 for each disabled employee
  • Last year Remploy found 1,200 jobs for disabled people in mainstream employment in Scotland
  • By 2012, Remploy will each year be finding more than 20,000 jobs for disabled people in mainstream employment in the UK
 
butchersapron said:
That great big ladder that's been deliberately turned into a cycle of temp jobs, shit jobs, hardship fund, temp job, shit job. Great stuff keir would be proud as fuck.

Tell me FP what uni did you go to and what is you current employment?
that was what i was thinking .someone is on a good wage telling others to take low wage dead end temporary jobs.let me remind you that that great champion of the poor john hutton stands to make a cool 400 thousand plus windfall on his house
 
Fullyplumped said:
I do think Keir Hardie would have approved of efforts to get Glaswegians into work and off the dole.

Strangely enough, when I was reading Kathryn Dodd's "A Sylvia Pankhurst reader" a few weeks ago (I'm sure you're well aware of Hardie's links to the Pankhursts), one of the things I was struck by was his (and S.P.'s) opposition to any form of "work creation" scheme that didn't result in a "real job".

Perhaps you are wrong in assuming that a true Labourite would have anything to do with the pussilanimous cheap labour schemes of "new Labour", eh? :)
 
Fullyplumped said:
Butchersapron - I ask again, who should do the work?

Where's the insult to dignity in doing a job? Does the woman who cleans my office lack dignity because of the work she does? If you are in work, does the person, almost certainly a woman, lack dignity because of her job?
The insult lies almost entirely in the fact that the govt hasn't listened, in fact has actively ignored the bulk of the disability lobby (by which I mean groups of and for the disabled, not the groups run by charities and businesspersons who purport to speak for us) in favour of instituting " work-based solution" that means, in many cases, the employee, regardless of disability/impairment, having to fit themselves, in ways that impact negatively on their health, to the needs of "business". How long until the first cases of people losing benefit entitlement because they're unable to manage the regime dictated to them by the DWP, how long until the first suicide?
We are dealing with people who are often a long way from holding down a job. Some are probably not capable of ever working, because of grave mental impairment, or insuperable physical disability. But an awful lot of my fellow citizens could make progress and could change their lives for the better. Living on £81.35 Incapacity Benefit is no life. It wouldn't be much of a life if the benefit rate was doubled, which it won't be.
The problem is that despite the rhetoric about "moving people toward work", the actual mechanism isn't one that progresses people as far as they are able to go and then leaves them alone, it (like the present system) is one that will continually harry those people to prove their level of ability/disability/capability. Myself, I'd rather "get by" on the pittance the state gives me, plus my even more pitiful ill-health pension, than be placed (by some medically-untrained "assessment officer") in a job that could provoke a serious problem with any of the half-dozen+ medical conditions I have.
 
ViolentPanda said:
The problem is that despite the rhetoric about "moving people toward work", the actual mechanism isn't one that progresses people as far as they are able to go and then leaves them alone, it (like the present system) is one that will continually harry those people to prove their level of ability/disability/capability. Myself, I'd rather "get by" on the pittance the state gives me, plus my even more pitiful ill-health pension, than be placed (by some medically-untrained "assessment officer") in a job that could provoke a serious problem with any of the half-dozen+ medical conditions I have.

People dying has already happened in the US whose model we're substantially copying - the famous case of a Coney Island woman with a heart problem 'assesed as fit to work' and moved off disability benefits into shit-work and who died as a result springs to mind. There are many many more examples of schemes like this drastically impacting on people's already bad health, pushed there by rigourous sanctions (by workers who have theie own bosses breathing down their necks to get people off the register pronto).
 
butchersapron said:
People dying has already happened in the US whose model we're substantially copying - the famous case of a Coney Island woman with a heart problem 'assesed as fit to work' and moved off disability benefits into shit-work and who died as a result springs to mind. .

There are numerous examples of that in Britain since the All Work Test and whatever it is called now were introduced.
I suspect the difficulty in finding out the number of suicides amongst those refused Incapacity Benefit is masking some horrific figures as well.
 
remploy probably isn't economic but a lot of things that need doing probably don't make sense in straight economic terms.
having an ability to manufacture ammunition and small arms in the UK not cuddly
but if urbanities ever got their choice of gov having the ability to organize self defense and the means to do it would be important.
its real work filling a real need that could be subsidized under national defense so not running foul of competition rules.
I'm sure theres loads of other civil defense goods that really ought to be stock plied just in case and just in time logistics arn't really going to help in the case of a massive flood storm etc.
 
butchersapron said:
People dying has already happened in the US whose model we're substantially copying - the famous case of a Coney Island woman with a heart problem 'assesed as fit to work' and moved off disability benefits into shit-work and who died as a result springs to mind. There are many many more examples of schemes like this drastically impacting on people's already bad health, pushed there by rigourous sanctions (by workers who have theie own bosses breathing down their necks to get people off the register pronto).

True enough but there are also countless cases of people who have been written off committing suicide and unemployment is not actually a joyfull experience.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Strangely enough, when I was reading Kathryn Dodd's "A Sylvia Pankhurst reader" a few weeks ago (I'm sure you're well aware of Hardie's links to the Pankhursts), one of the things I was struck by was his (and S.P.'s) opposition to any form of "work creation" scheme that didn't result in a "real job".

Perhaps you are wrong in assuming that a true Labourite would have anything to do with the pussilanimous cheap labour schemes of "new Labour", eh? :)

Kind of begs the question what is a real job?
McDonalds? The Army? The Home Office?
 
actually meets a real need or produces services goods that are in demand
army up to battalion level certainly get past lt col gets a bit hazy if your actually in command of troops its a real job if your writing reports for the mod probably not.
if your involved in in the next generation of weapons or equipment purchase hopefully your monumentally corrupt because the alternative is your so stupid breathing would present you with difficulties:(

mcdonalds real job customers buy your stuff if you don't sell what they want they can go else where

home office bit nebulous some real some not real
 
Fullyplumped said:
Well, first of all, many of the people cleaning toilets now will want to move on to do other things, so there will always be a need for people to clean toilets. And it's against health and safety not to have clean toilets cos of the bloody Labour government.

Bollocks. People should clean their own toilets. And if anyone is too old and infirm to do so there could be a team of special toilet volunteers. Christians or something.

Fullyplumped said:
And secondly, why should people who are working and paying tax pay people who could be working but would rather not work if they had to clean toilets?

Hark at the socialist. OK, don't tax wages, tax capital. A teeny tiny tax on capital would easily provide enough money for all the unemployed to live in comfort without working, as you well know. But you don't want that to happen, do you? You want us all to work, don't you? You and your party are profiteers and exploiters. If you don't go up against the wall in this life (and I concede that seems unlikely) you will surely burn in hell in the next.
 
tbaldwin said:
Kind of begs the question what is a real job?
No it doesn't. A "real job" is one that doesn't pay the firm that employs the disabled person a subsidy for being "compassionate" enough to employ a poor little crip. A "real job" is one that suits the abilities of the individual, not a job that the individual can be shoehorned into so that the JC+ office can meet its' quota.
McDonalds? The Army? The Home Office?
You're a sad little snide twat, aren't you balders? :)
 
ViolentPanda said:
No it doesn't. A "real job" is one that doesn't pay the firm that employs the disabled person a subsidy for being "compassionate" enough to employ a poor little crip. A "real job" is one that suits the abilities of the individual, not a job that the individual can be shoehorned into so that the JC+ office can meet its' quota.

You're a sad little snide twat, aren't you balders? :)

1 Why?

2 Cant argue with that.
 
Wow guys I hope that anger is going somewhere... but from the looks of it, it isnt as the so called anarcho movement is yaking on about everything else - war,climate change ect and seems to be ignorant or just ignoring the bread and butter issue such as this.

Just started up a web site because of this indiference and would like to piont Fully plumped at what is happening in the Netherlands > http://raw-rap.com/e107/news.php?item.32.6< there the labour bods are just realising that they do not have a disability benefits system to talk about as everyone is just Sick.

The argument on this need to move forward where we are actively saying to the government stop, through some old fashioned demo`s with people that want to rip the bloody head office in london apart.
 
Just heard from Benefits and Works Newsletter
Benefits and Work - New claim by the DWP that new working practices have cut the success rate for claimants at DLA appeals from around 50% to just 34%.

Unfortunately there is No Open Access to this report unless registered.
 
This kind of thing proves Lenin right: capitalism is not reformable. The working class achieved some respite in the twentieth century, largely as a result of two world wars, which weakened the power of capital to the extent that a barebones welfare state could be wrung out of it, but now it's back to the nineteenth century: work or starve.

How fitting that it is the Labour Party, whose historical role was to seduce the working class away from revolution and into reform, which is implementing these barbarous measures. I hope Fullyplumped is as satisfied as his name suggests.
 
Fullyplumped said:
  • In the last financial year it lost £684,000 or £19,542 for each disabled employee
  • Last year Remploy found 1,200 jobs for disabled people in mainstream employment in Scotland
  • By 2012, Remploy will each year be finding more than 20,000 jobs for disabled people in mainstream employment in the UK

Fullyplumped has merely regurgitated Remploy/DWP propaganda. Remploy claims to have placed over 5,300 disabled people, into ‘mainstream’ employment, across England, Scotland and Wales last year. Scotland’s population is around 10% of Englands; yet, according to Fullyplumped’s figures, Scotland accounted for 23% of these jobs. Not bad, when disabled groups are complaining that disability discrimination in employment is still rampant.

Remploy has been caught out on its claims. Yes, it made 5,300 mainstream placements last year; but, these were not 5,300 meaningful jobs. It has been discovered, that around 50% of placements last less than six-months – over 20%, a matter of weeks. Of the other 50%, these range from 6-months to 5 years.

As for Remploy placing 20,000 disabled people per year into mainstream employment by 2012; this is highly questionable.

Their claims that disabled workers at Remploy Hillington are losing the company £19,542 each per annum, is a misrepresentation. Remploy fails to disclose the breakdown of the £20,000. For instance, costs that should be ascribed to Interwork, are in fact loaded onto the factory network; as is, their oversized HR Dpt (nearly 50 HR managers – Pilkington Glass, employee population  6,000 has an HR Dpt of 7!); an outsized car pool, with corresponding fuel allowances; and, the entire Remploy Board.

That factories are losing money is sadly true. But, they are losing money due to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of senior management; a moribund buying department; and, an absolute failure on the part of LRMs to go out and generate work locally.

A new study by the Remploy Consortium of Trade Unions shows that public procurement orders placed directly with Remploy have an annual value of £32 million and amount to 22% of all their orders in their 83 factories. This means that Remploy’s share of the total annual spend by taxpayers in all departments of national and local government is a minuscule 0.024% of the total spend of £136 billion.

The trades unions are stepping up the campaign to move orders to Remploy factories which amount to 5p in every £100 already being spent on public procurement to save disabled workers jobs. Remploy secure only £32 million of orders from a total spend by the tax payer buying goods and services of £136 billion per annum. It must be possible with political will to increase this figure to save these disabled workers jobs.
 
terratech said:
Just heard from Benefits and Works Newsletter
Benefits and Work - New claim by the DWP that new working practices have cut the success rate for claimants at DLA appeals from around 50% to just 34%.

Unfortunately there is No Open Access to this report unless registered.
The information is in the public domain, so fuck only knows why they would want to charge people money to see it. Money grabbing fuckers by the sounds of it.

See here for more details.
 
Back
Top Bottom