Should hardworking people be guaranteed work?

We hear about hardworking people so often in the MSM...

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/03/hardworking-people-conservative-mythmaking

 

But we live in a society with an economy that doesn't provide people with enough work.

 

Surely we should provide enough work to the hardworking people?

 

Guaranteed employment, so that a person never need be unemployed and will always be better off for working, and always able to work so that he might be better off.

 

Hardworking people need work to guarantee them a minimum standard of living. Surely they should be guaranteed work?

 

Do you think hardworking people should be guaranteed work to ensure they can earn a proper dignified wage?

 

Should hardworking people be guaranteed work?

Hardworking people will always find some work to do, if someone sits on the arse for 6 months unable to find work its because they are not hard working people.

Really? And what is your proof for this statement? What sort of employer are we talking about here?

It's Mecky. He has no proof - he trots this standard line out when he wants to make a "point" about evil plutocratic capitalistic b*****ds without realising he's not got a clue what he's talking about, and that there are a lot of people on here who employ people, and know he's talking cobblers.

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 09:43 ----------

The sort interested in making a profit, why employ more people than you need?

Conversly why employ less people than you need and run the risk of poor quality work and missing the deadline...

Great and who would they employ to exploit if everyone starts their own business?

There is no need to employ anyone whilst running a business.

There is no need to employ anyone whilst running a business.

So why do businesses employ people then?

So why do businesses employ people then?

Because they expand their original idea to make more money.

An example being Tesco which was started as a market stall by Jack Cohen, obviously he could have continued to just operate as a sole trader running a market stall, but he saw an opportunity to expand and he took it, 95 years later we have a global company employing thousands of people.

Far too many people are working for free (internships, work experience, volunteers, etc,) or next to nothing, (jobs that get round the minimum wage, jobs that are subsidised by the government etc.) It's not on.

I think the law was changed recently and things like un-paid internships are now illegal.

I assume charities can employ volunteers, the Library appears to but I don't know if anyone else can.

Does anyone know the specifics of the law??

The answer is no, their is a difference between hard working and productive and/or skilled.

If a Premier League football team employed me as a player, I would work my socks off, but I wouldn't achieve anything as I am pants at football. I shouldn't be guaranteed a job because I simply work hard.

The analogy can be extended to cover all fields.

People will only get work if they want it, the employer's order book is full and the dealines are tight ... and only then, maybe. An employer would prefer to employ 3 people instead of the required 10, providing the work can be done at the minimal acceptable rate and minimal acceptable quality

If 3 people can do the job acceptably why would you employ 10?..

If 3 people can do the job acceptably why would you employ 10?..

You would employ ten on zero hours contracts and that way you will always be guaranteed to have three available for work.

What you seem to be demanding is that everyone who wants to work should be guaranteed a job and salary/wages commensurate with their qualifications and aptitudes.

 

I think the answer to that must be 'No, that isn't possible'.

Why not?

It's hardly expensive to pay people a bit more than dole to actually work.

If pay is lower than in the PRS or at the minimum, then all the PRS needs to do is offer average salary or higher than the minimum to attract workers, trained workers who are already working can still be recruited, the reserve army of labour need not be unemployed.

Structural unemployment need not be.

The state shouldn't be in the business of employing people, except where strictly necessary.

Because they expand their original idea to make more money.

 

An example being Tesco which was started as a market stall by Jack Cohen, obviously he could have continued to just operate as a sole trader running a market stall, but he saw an opportunity to expand and he took it, 95 years later we have a global company employing thousands of people.

How can they do that if, as you say, they don't employ people?