Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

here you are ...... a bit more on the above .... it is marginally edited, but if you read the whole, you'll see i have changed nothing ..... as i said, labour are an absolute joke, offering no more at all that the present bunch

it's funny, but i also regularly hear the usual suspects berating the present regime for only offering part time work and/or at minimum wage

Labour is including a £5.5bn "jobs guarantee" in its manifesto under which the long-term unemployed will be told to take up taxpayer-subsidised work or lose their benefits.
The scheme will see those under 25 given jobs for six months, with 25 hours a week paid at the minimum wage. ......
Private companies and voluntary sector organisations will be given incentives to provide the jobs by the offer of a wage subsidy. They will also be given £500 to provide an additional 10 hours a week of training.

I have just got hold of a copy of the Imigration reportThe 10 areas of Britain with the highest concentration of Viking ancestry are:

Bloody Vikings comming over here and stealing our jobs , and look how the crime rate as shot up, send them all back . And those Normans are just as bad [ you don't fool me , I know your really French ]

1. Shetland - 29.2%
2. Orkney - 25.2%
3. Caithness - 17.5%
4. Isle of Man - 12.3%
5. Western Isles - 11.3%
6. North West Scotland and Inner Hebrides - 9.9%
7. Argyll - 5.8%
8. Yorkshire - 5.6%
9. North East Scotland - 4.9%
10. North England - 4%

It remains to be seen if any companies want an employee for just six months. There are also restrictions regarding which jobs can be filled. I find it difficult to see where they can find enough jobs that need doing for a temporary period. Companies don't use staff that way.

Any idea how much "wage subsidy" is on offer?

Cynic what on earth are you talking about.

Its a far better work programme than that which exists now.

And it will cost more money but the pension funds it attacks are those who earn over £150 thousand per year and a bank bonus tax.

You really need to check out the present governments long term unemployment scheme were so called apprentices spend the first 2 months of the prog learning how to create a CV.

Hays the idea is for the companys to retain them, you burk.

GF.

Don't be so polite to Manuel.

He is not used to it.

Interestingly, the Normans were originally Vikings.

The companies are not going to retain them. They will be getting employees who have never worked before, people who don't even want a job, people who are unemployable and some that might make good employees. If companies actually wanted people they would just employ them. There are restrictions so that jobs that were going to be filled anyway are not eligible otherwise companies could get a subsidy for all new employees.

So Hays by definition your saying we wont get any growth in the private sector where these jobs are going to be targeted.

ohhhhhhhh its all out now Hays your thinking economic growth isnt an option.

Typical Tory.

sticky - it's a racing certainty it'll all be pretty much the same, as we all know .... it'll just sound a little different

if labour are lucky enough to get in with an overall majority - i still think a hung parliament the most likely - they'll boast about how well they have managed the economy, whereas the truth is that they - or indeed whoever gets in - will merely be reaping the the benefit of the tough but necessary measures that have been needed over the last 4 years to pull uk out of the inherited economic swamp

There will be growth in the private sector, but they will employ people when they need them. Forcing people to take a job is a good idea up to a point. The critical point is where you force people to take jobs who are either incapable to holding down a job or people who don't want a job or the job that is offered. Any company taking people like that are going to be pretty pissed off and will drop out of the scheme.

if you're in the public sector, over-staffing rarely comes into the equation

some developing countries will insist that you are over-staffed - i think this is the case in india - even though it is an incredibly inefficient way of running a business, the effects of which will eventually and inevitably come home to roost

in the uk private sector, labour is generally the major overhead and extra staff (including apprentices) will only be taken on if there is sufficient growth or the strong likelihood of same

effectively forcing companies to take on extra staff will change the unemployment statistics (perfectly fairly of course!), the hope being that these extra staff will eventually earn their keep in all senses
hmm! these things never work out as predicted, any more than traffic predictions for new motorways or even rail networks

If they drop out of the scheme they dont get benefits then. Simple as that.

And as for Dopey Tory Gauke he says we cant fund it.........WRONG.......as he forgot we will also have the Mansion Tax, a tax on public schools, and at some time during our 5 year stay and more, a few percentage points lobbed on Inheritance tax.

Dont you forget you taxed our pasties well were going to tax your pheasants.

Cynic, where have you been all day..............

'Starter jobs'
Up to 80% of the jobs that will be created will be in the private sector,

Hays shot yourself in the foot here, why do you think their are so many people on sanctions.........because they arent PROPER JOBS, labour will provide PROPER JOBS.....

Haystack - 10 Mar 2014 20:20 - 37966 of 37969

There will be growth in the private sector, but they will employ people when they need them. Forcing people to take a job is a good idea up to a point. The critical point is where you force people to take jobs who are either incapable to holding down a job or people who don't want a job or the job that is offered. Any company taking people like that are going to be pretty pissed off and will drop out of the scheme.

"proper jobs" created by whom?
jobs in the private sector are primarily created by growth in demand - as i have written above
does imposing "extra workforce" actually create additional demand for the products or services the employer is providing?

as i see it, the labour wonder kid thinks he'll just wave a magic wand, whereas it'll just be more smoke and mirrors, which is something you have rattled on about and against for some months here

================

i know for sure and first-hand that the reason we have stayed in business for the last 30 years, and thus through at least two severe recessions, is because we have only ever taken on extra staff when they were truly needed - and not overpaid ourselves either

during this same period, we have seen a very significant number of players in our niche industry disappear under the waves for failing in the above two disciplines

gf
There are no benefits. The 'benefits' are the wage subsidy for 6 months.

How can you tax public schools as they are charities and don't make profits?

How are Labour going to provide proper jobs that last just 6 months. It is a fantasy.

Now just hold on a second Cynic YOUR THE ONE who as been preaching economic growth for the last 6 months, so have you done a UTURN on your previous thinking?.

OR are you just rambling on as usual having done no research as per norm.

not at all .... why don't you read what i actually wrote? .... i'm afraid it is a regular habit of yours to manipulate my words into what you wish i had written

in fact our Rotterdam office - it's to where we have now moved our h/q - has taken on 2/3/4 new people over the last year, but that is because there was a genuine need for them