Jobs woe for Southend (From Southend Standard)

Ever tried to get labour from the job centre , i have a few times and no matter what you say they send the next ten people just to keep the stats right, as for youth work force , you end up with a lad with a mobile in each hand , stinking from cannibis, and half asleep from staying up all night playing computer games, the figures may not take into account the wasters that claim depression when in fact they are drug addicts or p,,,s heads, as soon as they get the giro its down to the dealer or the offy then steal the things they need , genuine people on the dole cant afford to take a job as they loose so much and the system is so bad they cant risk a casual work as it takes to long to get back in the system , let people who look everyday for work get their dole reduced in stages over a few months while they work,

And the simple reason for this is.........The shipping in ordained by government policy and the welcoming, by Southend borough council of every dreg of society from the surrounding inland areas. Unfortunately this practice of farming out undesirables is not uncommon to many 'B' list coastal resorts.(Hastings springs to mind).

It doesn't seem fair that a single unemployed person that gets their rent paid, their council tax paid, and is given income support, that all together can total over £11,000 tax free, should have to do no work whatsoever.

Southend's tory council have completely ignored the employment issue.
10 years ago Victoria Avenue was a bustling central business district employing thousands, but now it stands mostly derelict and ghetto like.
What a welcoming site it is to visitors to the borough!
Proof that this council has ignored the issue is that they appear to make no effort to encourage new business (employment) to the town instead opting for the tory ethos (make the quick buck) and let all development be for flats and the associated council tax revenue it returns.
Another example for the long list of Southend's tory council's failings for the borough.

Ok, let's get this straight. There is no law that says unemployed people cannot move from one area to another, nor is there a law that says people cannot travel to find work.
I live in the Southend area, and am well aware that things are very similar to how they were in the early 80's when many people here from areas of London & elsewhere whilst unemployed. I am also aware that there is very little opportunity for employment within the borough at present (try searching for jobs via the JobCentre Plus website, it is depressing to sasy the least), hence the reason I work (very long hours, even before taking the travelling time into consideration) in London, as do many others.
SBC needs to start making efforts to get central help for this area, to help boost employment, rather than get grants for (sometimes) unnecessary public work which don't even use local labour. We also need to ensure that life in benefits is not seen as an easy option, maybe those who are able bodied should be required to undertake work for a certain number of hours each week, perhaps helping to clear ponds in the parks, picking up litter from the beach, repairing the results of vandalism & graffitti etc. Yes, we also need to have a system in place to help those who start work to be able to to afford to do so, with grants towards working clothes, travel & food costs over the first months of a new job. Also, a look at the work permit system is required, we really need a system similar to the Isle of Man where you have to make a legally binding statement that you cannot find a suitable local applicant before you employ someone who needs a work permit, & you can be prosecuted for not being truthful over this.

Bosniavet wrote:
Ok, let's get this straight. There is no law that says unemployed people cannot move from one area to another, nor is there a law that says people cannot travel to find work.
I live in the Southend area, and am well aware that things are very similar to how they were in the early 80's when many people here from areas of London & elsewhere whilst unemployed. I am also aware that there is very little opportunity for employment within the borough at present (try searching for jobs via the JobCentre Plus website, it is depressing to sasy the least), hence the reason I work (very long hours, even before taking the travelling time into consideration) in London, as do many others.
SBC needs to start making efforts to get central help for this area, to help boost employment, rather than get grants for (sometimes) unnecessary public work which don't even use local labour. We also need to ensure that life in benefits is not seen as an easy option, maybe those who are able bodied should be required to undertake work for a certain number of hours each week, perhaps helping to clear ponds in the parks, picking up litter from the beach, repairing the results of vandalism & graffitti etc. Yes, we also need to have a system in place to help those who start work to be able to to afford to do so, with grants towards working clothes, travel & food costs over the first months of a new job. Also, a look at the work permit system is required, we really need a system similar to the Isle of Man where you have to make a legally binding statement that you cannot find a suitable local applicant before you employ someone who needs a work permit, & you can be prosecuted for not being truthful over this.

The only problem with getting the unemployed to do work for free is that by doing so you take away the jobs of those already employed to do that work. Getting the unemployed to pick litter on the beaches takes work away from Cory, no work for Cory means they need fewer staff, and so they make people redundant. Getting people to clear graffiti, repair vandalism, clean ponds, also takes work away from those already in employment.

If there is a job that needs doing, then give the unemployed person that job, actually EMPLOY them.

But don't use it as an excuse - as this d@manable government is doing - to get that job done on the cheap by circumventing the minimum wage.

Just when more are out of work the latest I saw Southend Council are charging people for paying their council tax/rents by Credit Card. Not nice for those who need to space it out due to extra bills one month ie getting school uniforms, two big bills together. not always possible to space them.

Lefty, I agree with you up to a point, but with your theory, we shouldn't have a single piece of litter or a single tag of graffiti around. The simple truth is we have loads of it. There's litter all over the place. Even heavily frequented areas like Priory Park are full of litter and the brook is full of rubbish including the obligatory shopping trollies and pushchairs. And it stays there for months on end. So, if Cory are handling this then we need a better service provider.
When we have these issues, there is no reason why the generally unemployable, not seriously job seekers should not put used to clear this up for their benefits. Those that are seriously, actively seeking employment could be made exempt so as not to impeded their efforts to return to the workplace.
Yes there is minimum wage, but you can use that in the calculations. If you get £70 benefits, that's 10 or so hours general work, doing whatever the local authority requires. Even if there is no work, at least the claimant would be required to get up in the morning to make themselves available.
What is wrong with that?

Southchurch Steve wrote:
Lefty, I agree with you up to a point, but with your theory, we shouldn't have a single piece of litter or a single tag of graffiti around. The simple truth is we have loads of it. There's litter all over the place. Even heavily frequented areas like Priory Park are full of litter and the brook is full of rubbish including the obligatory shopping trollies and pushchairs. And it stays there for months on end. So, if Cory are handling this then we need a better service provider.
When we have these issues, there is no reason why the generally unemployable, not seriously job seekers should not put used to clear this up for their benefits. Those that are seriously, actively seeking employment could be made exempt so as not to impeded their efforts to return to the workplace.
Yes there is minimum wage, but you can use that in the calculations. If you get £70 benefits, that's 10 or so hours general work, doing whatever the local authority requires. Even if there is no work, at least the claimant would be required to get up in the morning to make themselves available.
What is wrong with that?

What's wrong with it is that it will cost those already in employment their jobs.
It sounds great, but in practice it would be abused to get work done on the cheap, without having to pay a full wage, and without having to obey employment laws. Guaranteed.

If there is work to be done, then actually employ someone to do that job.

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Southchurch Steve wrote:
Lefty, I agree with you up to a point, but with your theory, we shouldn't have a single piece of litter or a single tag of graffiti around. The simple truth is we have loads of it. There's litter all over the place. Even heavily frequented areas like Priory Park are full of litter and the brook is full of rubbish including the obligatory shopping trollies and pushchairs. And it stays there for months on end. So, if Cory are handling this then we need a better service provider.
When we have these issues, there is no reason why the generally unemployable, not seriously job seekers should not put used to clear this up for their benefits. Those that are seriously, actively seeking employment could be made exempt so as not to impeded their efforts to return to the workplace.
Yes there is minimum wage, but you can use that in the calculations. If you get £70 benefits, that's 10 or so hours general work, doing whatever the local authority requires. Even if there is no work, at least the claimant would be required to get up in the morning to make themselves available.
What is wrong with that?

What's wrong with it is that it will cost those already in employment their jobs.
It sounds great, but in practice it would be abused to get work done on the cheap, without having to pay a full wage, and without having to obey employment laws. Guaranteed.

If there is work to be done, then actually employ someone to do that job.

But the whole point is that these jobs are simply not getting done. This idea would get them done.

Don't worry about the person getting £70 a week. Use the ones who get £70 a week plus other top up allowances, plus £20/week council tax benefit, plus £150/week housing benefit. To get this while working they would have to be on £280/week, so the minimum wage argument won't apply to them. Jobs for everyone, and a cleaner tidier borough.

Nebs wrote:

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:

Southchurch Steve wrote:
Lefty, I agree with you up to a point, but with your theory, we shouldn't have a single piece of litter or a single tag of graffiti around. The simple truth is we have loads of it. There's litter all over the place. Even heavily frequented areas like Priory Park are full of litter and the brook is full of rubbish including the obligatory shopping trollies and pushchairs. And it stays there for months on end. So, if Cory are handling this then we need a better service provider.
When we have these issues, there is no reason why the generally unemployable, not seriously job seekers should not put used to clear this up for their benefits. Those that are seriously, actively seeking employment could be made exempt so as not to impeded their efforts to return to the workplace.
Yes there is minimum wage, but you can use that in the calculations. If you get £70 benefits, that's 10 or so hours general work, doing whatever the local authority requires. Even if there is no work, at least the claimant would be required to get up in the morning to make themselves available.
What is wrong with that?

What's wrong with it is that it will cost those already in employment their jobs.
It sounds great, but in practice it would be abused to get work done on the cheap, without having to pay a full wage, and without having to obey employment laws. Guaranteed.

If there is work to be done, then actually employ someone to do that job.

But the whole point is that these jobs are simply not getting done. This idea would get them done.

Don't worry about the person getting £70 a week. Use the ones who get £70 a week plus other top up allowances, plus £20/week council tax benefit, plus £150/week housing benefit. To get this while working they would have to be on £280/week, so the minimum wage argument won't apply to them. Jobs for everyone, and a cleaner tidier borough.

Ah, 'labour makes you free', is that it?