[arethuza]

Exactly, far better off to have the unemployed doing something rather than sitting round watching daytime TV.

[Note that I say that as someone who actually has signed on for a bit when I was a daft kid and done some pretty ghastly manual laboring jobs in agriculture and fishing].

Mind you I think having to pay their own travelling expenses is a bit harsh (mind you the first employment I had was for 12-15 hour shifts and I had to cycle 45 minutes to get there and back.)

[csmuk]

Disagree:

1. The business should foot the wage.

2. The wage should be fair.

Doing something isn't actually necessarily possible. We've automated a big chunk of people's jobs away. There isn't necessarily a place for everyone to work now. Not only that, we're living longer. Provisions need to be made for these facts.

[arethuza]

You could argue as the loaded cost of employing anyone is a good bit more than their salary that any employer is making a contribution. (Usual rule of thumb is ~50% of salary for fully loaded costs - and that's without any thing fancy).

[csmuk]

I'm a business owner and have owned several businesses. I have employed over the years ~50 people.

Your point is total bollocks. Sorry for the language but that's the sort of detached non-holistic thinking that allows slavery to exist.

They like being whipped. After all what would they do if we weren't whipping them?

It's simply exploitation although capitalism has worked out how to call it training and internship to shrug off the social and moral responsibility.

Not only that, who pays the NI and employee tax contributions? Oh wait, that gets sucked from everyone else's income tax.

[arethuza]

Leaving aside the point about making folks pay their own traveling costs, which I agree is unfair, what would you do with these people?

[And for record I have started a company that employed a few hundred and (long) before that had been unemployed for a while and had a few rather grim laboring jobs].

[csmuk]

Good for you. That's what we need. Been in the same situation.

That's easy as I've already done it before on several occasions.

I'd employ them for the minimum wage and pay up their travel allowance (be that oyster or season ticket). If they have any needs such as caring for relatives, which appears to be the main reason people are unemployed from what I have seen, I'd make sure their time and work location was flexible. I'd then make damn sure that:

a) they get some training and the ability to self improve.

b) they get a secure job.

People are grateful of both of these. If you make a positive contribution to their lives, they will make a contribution to your business. Everyone benefits.

The problem is that the prevailing opinion is that exploitation and bottom line are the most important things. While sipping champers at the wine bar, your slaves are turning the wheels for you. No thanks.

For ref, all of my business were fully reinvestment based. No profit was made, no investors were used and good, reliable salaries were paid. They weren't sold off for profit - they were given to the employees when I started venture+1 up. That was it.

[Nursie]

You could, but it would be disingenuous.

Some of the cost of employment in the UK is employers national insurance (effectively a kind o tax that gets paid by the company before the employee even sees the pay check). This is not present here. Neither is there any question of employee rights, or employer responsibilities because there's no employment.