Low Pay Britain

I did. I couldn't believe it. Some of the employers can surely be prosecuted, particularly the one who said that it's only HMRC that are the losers.

Not many people actually say that employers gain by not paying employer's NI if their employees are not paid much.
6.8 million part time workers, and half are not earning enough to pay NI, so will not get the full pension.
I liked the way that the Tesco spokesperson said that the employees choose hours to suit themselves. Does he sleep at night?

I am not sure that HMRC being the only losers is necessarily breaking the law durhamjen, or there would be an awful lot of very rich people who could be accused of doing so.

I do think some of the things they were charging the employees for - did I hear right that they were recharging the employees for the employers NI contribution? - must have been very close to the mark.

The point they made about the time-bomb with pensions does not seem to be getting much air time but if they end up with little or no pension they will still have to be supported and the people setting these systems up will walk off into a very nice sunset.

It isn't just companies like Tesco, I have a feeling this cutting every corner mentality is rife in all large organisations including government paid ones.

Yes, it's a race to the bottom. There was an interesting article on the news channel about the fact that Britain is the only country where, when middle range jobs are lost we get more lower paid ones. Every other country gets more higher paid ones.

I hope that something will come of that programme. It cannot just be left like that, companies paying apprentice wages without telling people is not legal, surely.
The man who said about everyone else winning actually said about the workers that they would be satisfied, although it was obvious they were not. That was the spokesperson for the agency.
Cameron was at that Asos factory, saying how good it was that there were jobs. That was where they paid the workers off before their 12 weeks were up, so they did not have to pay employer's NI. Not officially breaking the law, but it stinks.

I watched this programme and was appalled at what was basically cheating and dishonest ways of cutting costs. This truly is a race to the bottom and makes me very angry.

According to the Financial Times, jobs in Britain have gone into a more hourglass figure. Which is a shame.

Just been reading this. Have you read it, soontobe?

www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/21360

I have not seen it.
Do you know when it was written?
By sanctioned, do they mean sectioned?

Or sanctioned as in the benefits are stopped.

I dont know anything about this issue at all.
It looks awful.

Sanctioned as in benefits stopped. The date is this weekend. I was put onto it from a different site. Not being religious, I would not have thought of looking at it, but there's a lot of interesting stuff on the site.

The report from the Methodist Church using freedom of information requests shows that 100 people a day with mental health issues are being sanctioned. That article was written last week.

There was also the 23-weeks pregnant young woman who was sanctioned (last August). I've pasted the following snippets from the following link, but I've seen it on many other sites too: northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/protesters-target-ashton-jobcentre-for.html

"By all accounts, the DIY firm (B&Q) had offered her a placement working unpaid and had said that her pregnancy was not a problem as they would give her light duty work to undertake. She then discovered that they had changed tack and contacted the Jobcentre in Ashton-under-Lyne to say they didn't require her services because she was pregnant. The Jobcentre then told her she was being sanctioned because she should not have declared her pregnancy."

Perhaps the most shocking bit is what the Job Centre employee is alleged to have said to her when she said that their sanction left her with no money to feed herself or her child: "you're pregnant, not ill, and you shouldn't have told B&Q that you were pregnant."

If this is genuinely what happened and is typical of how job seekers are treated, then heaven help us all!

Apologies to the OP for straying off-topic.

I think that is very on topic.

Here are some more interesting statistics for the coalition to think about.
There are many angry benefits claimants out there with a vote in May.

www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2994-claimant-count-vs-parliamentary-majorities

Some Job Centres are being entirely random in their decisions to sanction people. I do not think that one clerk behind a desk should be able to make these decisions without them needing to be seen and approved by several layers of management above them. Those affected should also be able to be present at a hearing before this is done and be allowed to take someone to the hearing with them. They should also receive notice that this will happen in several weeks time. It should never take immediate effect.

But it does and it's under this government's watch. People get sanctioned instantly.
I have just seen this. Nothing like a hypocrite. This man has voted for this government's policies for five years at least.

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/30/politician-sir-john-randall-retail-working-conditions-shuts-randalls-uxbridge

He is now worried about the low pay policies that he voted for. He was a chief whip for the coalition!

Today's story about benefit sanctions.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nearly-100000-of-britains-poorest-children-go-hungry-after-parents-benefits-are-cut-10079056.html

And David Cameron says he wants to talk about the Big Society instead of the economy. He's absolutely disgusting.

durhamjen Yes, it is truly disgusting.

From Channel 4 News in 2013, a report that there were already signs of the growing incidence of malnutrition in the UK and warnings of more damage to come.

".. new figures show hospital admissions in England have nearly doubled in the last five years."

"A group of scientists and public health experts is warning the rise is evidence of a "public health emergency" which could be linked to changes to benefits."

"... They also point to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that found families were buying cheaper more unhealthy food."

".....They say they are particularly worried about the number of children with malnutrition because it can cause cardiovascular and other chronic diseases in adulthood."

Of course, all these fears are now being realised as the "welfare reforms" are kicking in. How disgraceful that little children (or anyone) should be punished in this way.

And, in the long run, how much more expensive will it be when these malnourished children grow into adults with all sorts of health problems caused by deficiencies in their childhood diets?

A mentally ill man in Oxford died from starvation as the result of 'sanctioning'
www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/28/man-starved-to-death-after-benefits-cut

What a sad miserable end for someone that had done nobody any harm. It's shameful.

Utterly shameful in a so called civilised society. And still people will bleat on about benefit claimants and their 'big flat screen tv' and their cigarettes....it is not about the handful of people who cheat the system, it is about the poor devils who are let down. I pay for this and I want my money to help people, not starve them to death.

1 million people dependent on food banks- Britain today. How can we accept this as a nation?

We shouldnt accept it The flatBox but still there are politicians and spokespeople like the ghastly Edwina Currie who think that food banks are used because they are there, not because they are necessarily needed. We should all be asking our parliamentary candidates where they stand on this issue, I expect that ours will be crawling out of the woodwork soon as even he will have noticed that there is an election on the way.

That is an enormous number. I didnt know it was as high as that.

Yes, it's too many. But the population of the UK is around 65 million, so not a huge percentage.