Nationalise childcare so that single parents can get off Income Support/JSA and into work. In 2004 the UK came 20th in nationalised childcare out of 23 European countries studied, trailing Turkey and Greece. Right now we have a lot LESS nationalised/subsidised childcare places than we did in WW2!
Why is this idea important?
Nationalise childcare so that single parents can get off Income Support/JSA and into work. In 2004 the UK came 20th in nationalised childcare out of 23 European countries studied, trailing Turkey and Greece. Right now we have a lot LESS nationalised/subsidised childcare places than we did in WW2!
All the Indian it companies are bringing alot of professionals on intercompany transfers to UK.
1.they only pay allowance to them but in their work permit they show income nearer to 40k at the time of visa application,but they will not pay taxes to gov of UK
2.they are killing IT industry in UK.
3.if a guy comes on TCS intercompany transfer and works for one company in UK for 3 months then TCS is using the same person in another company for some other time.All the it companies are using intercompany transfer as tier1
4.intercomapny transfer should be specific for one company like TCS-VISA for 6 months not like TCS for 2 years
5.all intercompany transfer professional should pay taxes in UK.
Why is this idea important?
All the Indian it companies are bringing alot of professionals on intercompany transfers to UK.
1.they only pay allowance to them but in their work permit they show income nearer to 40k at the time of visa application,but they will not pay taxes to gov of UK
2.they are killing IT industry in UK.
3.if a guy comes on TCS intercompany transfer and works for one company in UK for 3 months then TCS is using the same person in another company for some other time.All the it companies are using intercompany transfer as tier1
4.intercomapny transfer should be specific for one company like TCS-VISA for 6 months not like TCS for 2 years
5.all intercompany transfer professional should pay taxes in UK.
Either company insolvency should become a ‘special circumstance’ meaning the obligation to consult with workforce could be dispensed with in this case, or perhaps reduced to a shorter and more manageable period, or the rules regarding Redundancy Payments Office safety nets could be amended so that the RPO does not pay out on protective awards.This would still leave employees able to claim their protective awards against the company but at least they would not be directly funded by the taxpayer where company insolvency is concerned.
Background:The number of company insolvencies is likely to rise by the end of 2010. Returning a business to profit in the short term generally means significant cost cutting of the kind only achieved by reducing staff numbers meaning redundancy costs have to be absorbed by a business that is already financially distressed. The trouble is that the company is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.Non-compliance with the consultation rule means employees can claim what is termed a ‘Protective Award’ at an Employment Tribunal, compelling the company to pay up to 90 days of salary by way of penalty for failing to consult with staff (though this may be reduced if some consultation takes place).There are few exceptions to the consultation rule and as matters stand at the moment, a company being unable to pay its debts is not one of them.
Why is this idea important?
Either company insolvency should become a ‘special circumstance’ meaning the obligation to consult with workforce could be dispensed with in this case, or perhaps reduced to a shorter and more manageable period, or the rules regarding Redundancy Payments Office safety nets could be amended so that the RPO does not pay out on protective awards.This would still leave employees able to claim their protective awards against the company but at least they would not be directly funded by the taxpayer where company insolvency is concerned.
Background:The number of company insolvencies is likely to rise by the end of 2010. Returning a business to profit in the short term generally means significant cost cutting of the kind only achieved by reducing staff numbers meaning redundancy costs have to be absorbed by a business that is already financially distressed. The trouble is that the company is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.Non-compliance with the consultation rule means employees can claim what is termed a ‘Protective Award’ at an Employment Tribunal, compelling the company to pay up to 90 days of salary by way of penalty for failing to consult with staff (though this may be reduced if some consultation takes place).There are few exceptions to the consultation rule and as matters stand at the moment, a company being unable to pay its debts is not one of them.
the country is ruined. Why destroy it completely and bankrupt it further by giving handouts to people who come here for no other reason than to get free mloney.. Look after your own people….. hows that for a radical idea.?? then maybe our country could improve again instead of plumetting completely.
Why is this idea important?
the country is ruined. Why destroy it completely and bankrupt it further by giving handouts to people who come here for no other reason than to get free mloney.. Look after your own people….. hows that for a radical idea.?? then maybe our country could improve again instead of plumetting completely.
The Office of National Statistics shows that even today men in full-time employment still earn 12.2 per cent more than women doing the same jobs.
We are all told that the reasons for this are complex and that there are issues of confidentiality which prevent the problem being adequately addressed.
A simple solution would be to increase the wages for ALL women in full-time employment by 12.2 per cent. This would, in a single stroke, acheive the equality which decades of government policy has failed to do.
Why is this idea important?
The Office of National Statistics shows that even today men in full-time employment still earn 12.2 per cent more than women doing the same jobs.
We are all told that the reasons for this are complex and that there are issues of confidentiality which prevent the problem being adequately addressed.
A simple solution would be to increase the wages for ALL women in full-time employment by 12.2 per cent. This would, in a single stroke, acheive the equality which decades of government policy has failed to do.
A great deal of time and money is spent in the Courts in defining who is 'an employee' in order to decide whether an individual has statutory and/or contractual employment rights. Despite the vast body of case law that has developed around the definition contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996, the position is still unclear. Employers are seemingly able to deny people who work for them access to employment rights simply by calling them 'workers' and saying they are 'not obliged' to provide them with work. This right which is balanced in favour of employers has even been incorporated into agreements which are of no real benefit to the individuals concerned but must be signed in order to access work with that employer. The agreement is then used as evidence by the employer to show there is no ‘mutuality of obligation’; on their part to provide work or on the individual's part to accept work offered. In reality an individual may have no choice other than to sign such an agreement and in effect sign away their employment rights if they may otherwise be refused work. An example of this is in private sector healthcare where an individual can be employed through a 'bank' arrangement for many years on a regular, on-going basis without a break in continuity of service. They have some limited rights e.g. under Health and Safety and Working Time Regulations. However because their employer has designated them a 'bank worker' and not a 'bank employee' they accrue no redundancy or notice rights. Employers obviously see this as a cheap form of expendable labour whereas the individual may in every respect be as loyal, dedicated and worthy of compensation for losing his/her job as anyone designated an 'employee'. A simple solution would be to amend the definition of an employee in the Employment Rights Act to include anyone who is directly employed by the employer to undertake work for that employer (i.e. not self-employed and not engaged through an agency or by a third party). The individual would still need continuity of service in order to qualify, as employees do at present, for rights to claim unfair dismissal, redundancy payments etc. This change would not therefore prevent employers from taking on employees as and when required to meet short term needs or prevent individuals who genuinely want to work on a casual basis from doing so since in those latter cases the employees will still not accrue continuous service.
Why is this idea important?
A great deal of time and money is spent in the Courts in defining who is 'an employee' in order to decide whether an individual has statutory and/or contractual employment rights. Despite the vast body of case law that has developed around the definition contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996, the position is still unclear. Employers are seemingly able to deny people who work for them access to employment rights simply by calling them 'workers' and saying they are 'not obliged' to provide them with work. This right which is balanced in favour of employers has even been incorporated into agreements which are of no real benefit to the individuals concerned but must be signed in order to access work with that employer. The agreement is then used as evidence by the employer to show there is no ‘mutuality of obligation’; on their part to provide work or on the individual's part to accept work offered. In reality an individual may have no choice other than to sign such an agreement and in effect sign away their employment rights if they may otherwise be refused work. An example of this is in private sector healthcare where an individual can be employed through a 'bank' arrangement for many years on a regular, on-going basis without a break in continuity of service. They have some limited rights e.g. under Health and Safety and Working Time Regulations. However because their employer has designated them a 'bank worker' and not a 'bank employee' they accrue no redundancy or notice rights. Employers obviously see this as a cheap form of expendable labour whereas the individual may in every respect be as loyal, dedicated and worthy of compensation for losing his/her job as anyone designated an 'employee'. A simple solution would be to amend the definition of an employee in the Employment Rights Act to include anyone who is directly employed by the employer to undertake work for that employer (i.e. not self-employed and not engaged through an agency or by a third party). The individual would still need continuity of service in order to qualify, as employees do at present, for rights to claim unfair dismissal, redundancy payments etc. This change would not therefore prevent employers from taking on employees as and when required to meet short term needs or prevent individuals who genuinely want to work on a casual basis from doing so since in those latter cases the employees will still not accrue continuous service.
The purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is to re-integrate ex-offenders into society. A person who has commited an offence which has consequently become spent and who hasn't reoffended since, should not, by virtue of the above Act, be compelled to disclose such an offence to a potential employer. So, why are certain professions exempt from this? It is submitted that the 'Exemptions' list to the above Act should be explicitly repealed.
Why is this idea important?
The purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is to re-integrate ex-offenders into society. A person who has commited an offence which has consequently become spent and who hasn't reoffended since, should not, by virtue of the above Act, be compelled to disclose such an offence to a potential employer. So, why are certain professions exempt from this? It is submitted that the 'Exemptions' list to the above Act should be explicitly repealed.
My idea as a young person, is that job cuts should be made from the top….
I currently work in local government and I am at risk of loosing my job because I only work on a temporary basis. The impact off this is:
1. I will have to attempt to find another one
2. As I work in social care people will DIE as a result of the cut backs, innocent individuals are suffering as a result of the cutbacks and not getting the care they receive.
3. The government wants to get people back working – when all what happens is I get fobbed off for not enough experience for anything – how am I meant to gain full time employment ……..
So I propose the following:
1. Instead of cutting from the working class at the bottom – cut down the fat cats at the top – Do they seriously need to be earning 120,000 PA its redicioulous, you could half their pay and they could still live a luxury life.
2. Stop sending post to employees within local government – do this via the internal mail system – hey presto 25000 per year at least saved here within my local authority.
3. Set up schemes for those struggling to get into local government instead of fobbing them off!
ALSO…..
Whilst we are undertaking a financially difficult situation – do you not think it is common sense to help our country and its people before helping others – what about those 1000s of pounds going into building weapons, bailing other countries out of debt why? when people in our own country cannot get work! It really is frustrating
Why is this idea important?
My idea as a young person, is that job cuts should be made from the top….
I currently work in local government and I am at risk of loosing my job because I only work on a temporary basis. The impact off this is:
1. I will have to attempt to find another one
2. As I work in social care people will DIE as a result of the cut backs, innocent individuals are suffering as a result of the cutbacks and not getting the care they receive.
3. The government wants to get people back working – when all what happens is I get fobbed off for not enough experience for anything – how am I meant to gain full time employment ……..
So I propose the following:
1. Instead of cutting from the working class at the bottom – cut down the fat cats at the top – Do they seriously need to be earning 120,000 PA its redicioulous, you could half their pay and they could still live a luxury life.
2. Stop sending post to employees within local government – do this via the internal mail system – hey presto 25000 per year at least saved here within my local authority.
3. Set up schemes for those struggling to get into local government instead of fobbing them off!
ALSO…..
Whilst we are undertaking a financially difficult situation – do you not think it is common sense to help our country and its people before helping others – what about those 1000s of pounds going into building weapons, bailing other countries out of debt why? when people in our own country cannot get work! It really is frustrating
Due to the high percentage of new jobs being taken by foreign born workers, employers must be made to prove efforts to take on U.K. citizens after which short term work permits issued to outsiders – similar to the Isle of Man authority procedures.
Employers given business tax reduction incentives to employ British born workers, and if they're deliberately not up to standard, the return to benefits must be reduced by the incentive and more to cover administration costs. Going back to benefits must be discouraged in every way and be worse off than before.
Why is this idea important?
Due to the high percentage of new jobs being taken by foreign born workers, employers must be made to prove efforts to take on U.K. citizens after which short term work permits issued to outsiders – similar to the Isle of Man authority procedures.
Employers given business tax reduction incentives to employ British born workers, and if they're deliberately not up to standard, the return to benefits must be reduced by the incentive and more to cover administration costs. Going back to benefits must be discouraged in every way and be worse off than before.
Give tenants security of tenure and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? A shortage of cheap rented furnished accommodation and a requirement of at least one month's deposit and one month 's rent in advance when previously a week of each would have sufficed,putting tha accommodation within the reach of an awful lot more people !
Give employees security in their jobs and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? Unemployment alas ! Nobody can force you to continue to buy meat from your local butcher if the quality deteriorates,so nobody should force you to continue to buy labour from someone who no longer give the service you want ! If you force employers to keep those they no longer want or require it's bad for business and it makes employers a bit more hesitant about employing someone who has been out of work for some time or who has a criminal record.
One reason that the USA is still the richest and most powerful country in the world is because people in general work harder and longer and value their jobs because they will get fired if they don't ! Nobody should be able to force an unwilling employer to keep them in a job because that demeans the value of the job and reduces the mobility of labour that eventually ensures a prosprous society.
I am sure I am preaching heresy here to the proponents of the politically correct,but the sad fact is that security of tenure of jobs means inefficient businesses and unemployment,whilst security of tenure in rented accomodation just means a shortage for those who cannot raise the resulting increased downpayments !
Why is this idea important?
It's called "the law of unintended consequences"!
Give tenants security of tenure and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? A shortage of cheap rented furnished accommodation and a requirement of at least one month's deposit and one month 's rent in advance when previously a week of each would have sufficed,putting tha accommodation within the reach of an awful lot more people !
Give employees security in their jobs and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? Unemployment alas ! Nobody can force you to continue to buy meat from your local butcher if the quality deteriorates,so nobody should force you to continue to buy labour from someone who no longer give the service you want ! If you force employers to keep those they no longer want or require it's bad for business and it makes employers a bit more hesitant about employing someone who has been out of work for some time or who has a criminal record.
One reason that the USA is still the richest and most powerful country in the world is because people in general work harder and longer and value their jobs because they will get fired if they don't ! Nobody should be able to force an unwilling employer to keep them in a job because that demeans the value of the job and reduces the mobility of labour that eventually ensures a prosprous society.
I am sure I am preaching heresy here to the proponents of the politically correct,but the sad fact is that security of tenure of jobs means inefficient businesses and unemployment,whilst security of tenure in rented accomodation just means a shortage for those who cannot raise the resulting increased downpayments !
why doesn't the government help groups of unemployed people/disabled people and any other people to set up their own full co-operative business. this could be a productive way for people to free themselves from benifits (maybe not straightaway but in the long run as the business improves – details would need ironing out). help them retrain if necessary, give them business advisors and financial advisors to help them find a product niche. show them how find business premises. apply from the lowly production operative to the CEO for equal pay (okay I know thats difficult to accept but in my view the first priority is not to be state dependent – and in any case, my view is that every job is worthwhile and needs to be recognised equally) I strongly object to the current mindset of greed without care for those on low pay. If people shared it more there wouldn't be all this sodding benifit dependency would there. I think this will help people a) get off benifits b) promote wealth and investment c) create a fairer system of wealth and enable the government to roll back its interference. it would help get the country moving.
if unemployment does rise sharply after all these cut backs, how else are we going to rid ourselves or at least reduce poverty, inequality and social problems.
in my view, people need to feel as though they have a future, self employment aft er years of employment may represent a major shift in mental attitude but i think it has to be done/considered. we need to start making things again if we are to provide our own security too. co-operatives would help in that process.
There is a need for us to be more creative, we should be doing that. I know this idea of mine has links to left wing ideas, which may or may not be unpopular but I am not looking at it from that stand of ideology. I am looking at it from the point of see a problem, make a suggestion that might help fix it.
Why is this idea important?
why doesn't the government help groups of unemployed people/disabled people and any other people to set up their own full co-operative business. this could be a productive way for people to free themselves from benifits (maybe not straightaway but in the long run as the business improves – details would need ironing out). help them retrain if necessary, give them business advisors and financial advisors to help them find a product niche. show them how find business premises. apply from the lowly production operative to the CEO for equal pay (okay I know thats difficult to accept but in my view the first priority is not to be state dependent – and in any case, my view is that every job is worthwhile and needs to be recognised equally) I strongly object to the current mindset of greed without care for those on low pay. If people shared it more there wouldn't be all this sodding benifit dependency would there. I think this will help people a) get off benifits b) promote wealth and investment c) create a fairer system of wealth and enable the government to roll back its interference. it would help get the country moving.
if unemployment does rise sharply after all these cut backs, how else are we going to rid ourselves or at least reduce poverty, inequality and social problems.
in my view, people need to feel as though they have a future, self employment aft er years of employment may represent a major shift in mental attitude but i think it has to be done/considered. we need to start making things again if we are to provide our own security too. co-operatives would help in that process.
There is a need for us to be more creative, we should be doing that. I know this idea of mine has links to left wing ideas, which may or may not be unpopular but I am not looking at it from that stand of ideology. I am looking at it from the point of see a problem, make a suggestion that might help fix it.
Respect the privacy of citizens formerly convicted of an offence.
Most criminals are unemployed. And people in work seldom commit an offence. Indeed, there is nothing worse for reforming an offfender than them not being able to find work after their offence.
The EU recognises this and has put into place laws preventing employers discriminating against people convicted of something.
This is to help reform them. It is illegal for an employer, for example, to inquire in a job interview about convictions. It is illegal to request that information on applications.
And it works. Reoffence is scarce after steady employment is found.
But there's one crazy little country "opting out" of this ruling by forcing people to mention convictions on job applications.
In the UK, a former offender remains under State obligation to declare convictions on job applications (except in some cases).
Here's a Eures search on the word "conviction". Only the UK imposes self-destruction on its citizens by forcing many of those convicted of something to remain in unemployment.
Respect the privacy of citizens formerly convicted of an offence.
Most criminals are unemployed. And people in work seldom commit an offence. Indeed, there is nothing worse for reforming an offfender than them not being able to find work after their offence.
The EU recognises this and has put into place laws preventing employers discriminating against people convicted of something.
This is to help reform them. It is illegal for an employer, for example, to inquire in a job interview about convictions. It is illegal to request that information on applications.
And it works. Reoffence is scarce after steady employment is found.
But there's one crazy little country "opting out" of this ruling by forcing people to mention convictions on job applications.
In the UK, a former offender remains under State obligation to declare convictions on job applications (except in some cases).
Here's a Eures search on the word "conviction". Only the UK imposes self-destruction on its citizens by forcing many of those convicted of something to remain in unemployment.
Being over 50 I am aware of the discrimation in the work place. I have applied for hundreds of jobs but have only had two interviews. I saw an article in the "Daily Mail" yesterday regarding the over 50s who are highly skilled and looking for a job, but are unable to find one. The other side of the coin is the CBI telling everyone that this country has a skills shortage, and skilled people need to be let into the UK from outside of the European Union. This Is just an Idea to help solve both problems. Start a website where all the unemployed people could register their skills and C.V. If an employer applies to the government saying, "I can't find the skills I want and need to bring people in from overseas"; they could then be directed to this website and, with a little joined up thinking, the employer would find the skilled worker he needs and someone would get a job. If the employers still say no one was suitable, they could be challenged.
Why is this idea important?
Being over 50 I am aware of the discrimation in the work place. I have applied for hundreds of jobs but have only had two interviews. I saw an article in the "Daily Mail" yesterday regarding the over 50s who are highly skilled and looking for a job, but are unable to find one. The other side of the coin is the CBI telling everyone that this country has a skills shortage, and skilled people need to be let into the UK from outside of the European Union. This Is just an Idea to help solve both problems. Start a website where all the unemployed people could register their skills and C.V. If an employer applies to the government saying, "I can't find the skills I want and need to bring people in from overseas"; they could then be directed to this website and, with a little joined up thinking, the employer would find the skilled worker he needs and someone would get a job. If the employers still say no one was suitable, they could be challenged.
Being over 50 I am aware of the discrimation in the work place, I have applied for hundreds of jobs but have only had two interviews. I saw an article in the Daily Mail yesterday regarding the over 50s who are highly skilled and looking for work but can't get work. The other side of the coin is the CBI telling everyone that this country has a skills shortage and skilled people need to be let into the UK from outside of the European Union. This Is just an Idea to help solve both problems. Start a website where all unemployed people could register their skills and C.V. If an employer applies to the government saying "I can't find the skills I want and need to bring people in from overseas" They could be directed to this website and with a little joined up thinking the employer would find the skills he needs, and someone would get a job. If the employers still says that there is no one suitable they could be challenged.
Why is this idea important?
Being over 50 I am aware of the discrimation in the work place, I have applied for hundreds of jobs but have only had two interviews. I saw an article in the Daily Mail yesterday regarding the over 50s who are highly skilled and looking for work but can't get work. The other side of the coin is the CBI telling everyone that this country has a skills shortage and skilled people need to be let into the UK from outside of the European Union. This Is just an Idea to help solve both problems. Start a website where all unemployed people could register their skills and C.V. If an employer applies to the government saying "I can't find the skills I want and need to bring people in from overseas" They could be directed to this website and with a little joined up thinking the employer would find the skills he needs, and someone would get a job. If the employers still says that there is no one suitable they could be challenged.
The time limit imposed on Employment Tribunal Claims is far too short. By the time the average worker has decided they have been unfairly treated and then found that "free advice" is almost impossible to obtain the deadlines have already been exceeded. Even in cases where Trade Unions are involved, unless your Rep is an expert and is not already snowed under with work you can exceed the time limits or submit a substandard claim.
In cases where Equality Legislation applies many cases are being lost on 'technicalities' even though discrimination has occurred.
The system is supposed to help the victims but without legal representation you are at a massive disadvantage. This is unjust.
Why is this idea important?
The time limit imposed on Employment Tribunal Claims is far too short. By the time the average worker has decided they have been unfairly treated and then found that "free advice" is almost impossible to obtain the deadlines have already been exceeded. Even in cases where Trade Unions are involved, unless your Rep is an expert and is not already snowed under with work you can exceed the time limits or submit a substandard claim.
In cases where Equality Legislation applies many cases are being lost on 'technicalities' even though discrimination has occurred.
The system is supposed to help the victims but without legal representation you are at a massive disadvantage. This is unjust.
Im one of those disabled people, spina bifida, and use wheelchair permanently, cant walk at all so i think i know what im talking about on this subject
1) DONT take their DLA, it is NOT an out of work benefit and in most cases is the thing that allows them to WORK, if they lost it, and i include myself in this, they could not work and would be stuck on benefits.
2) set up some kind of workplace adaptations scheme, where products that allow a disabled person to work better would be readily available, and also attach to this a research group that looks into products that would allow a disabled person to work and live a life, I would gladly be a part of this as working in disability/ability/access product development is something im interested in working in Anyway. There are so many jobs a disabled person could do but arent possible because the technology just isnt there, or no one has bothered to look for it, there is a company i know of in Yorkshire that adapts pretty much anything with an engine to enable a disabled person to use it, ive seen an adapted Lorry, JCB digger, and several other things on their website not sure if company advertising is allowed here but, http://www.kcmobility.co.uk/mobility-solutions/products.asp?product=85
If more things like this were widely known about, and this kind of thing was taken up by the government in the way ive mentioned, it would open up more options for disabled people, yes it would cost money but in the long run would pay for itself.
3) One of the biggest, if not the biggest, barriers to disabled people finding work is a doubt that they could do the job anyway, from both the disabled person themselves and prospective employees, so i propose a scheme where when a disabled person applies for a job they are given a trial run in the job, say a month, paid for by the state, so that it doesnt cost the employer, particularly if if things for whatever reason dont work out in having to re advertise the job. This kind of scheme would allow both parties to see what the disabled person could or could not do and work out any kinks so to speak, and would, im sure, result in both parties looking at disability differently. Much better than one or both parties just flat out saying oh i'm/youre in a wheelchair, i/you cant do that. that is the attitude that stops disabled people working.
I realise that these things cost money, but, as i said, in the long run they would pay for themselves by allowing more disabled people to work and gain the confidence to realise they can work, And also show employers and other able bodied individuals that disabled people are not incapable given some support through DLA and in work adaptations
Why is this idea important?
Im one of those disabled people, spina bifida, and use wheelchair permanently, cant walk at all so i think i know what im talking about on this subject
1) DONT take their DLA, it is NOT an out of work benefit and in most cases is the thing that allows them to WORK, if they lost it, and i include myself in this, they could not work and would be stuck on benefits.
2) set up some kind of workplace adaptations scheme, where products that allow a disabled person to work better would be readily available, and also attach to this a research group that looks into products that would allow a disabled person to work and live a life, I would gladly be a part of this as working in disability/ability/access product development is something im interested in working in Anyway. There are so many jobs a disabled person could do but arent possible because the technology just isnt there, or no one has bothered to look for it, there is a company i know of in Yorkshire that adapts pretty much anything with an engine to enable a disabled person to use it, ive seen an adapted Lorry, JCB digger, and several other things on their website not sure if company advertising is allowed here but, http://www.kcmobility.co.uk/mobility-solutions/products.asp?product=85
If more things like this were widely known about, and this kind of thing was taken up by the government in the way ive mentioned, it would open up more options for disabled people, yes it would cost money but in the long run would pay for itself.
3) One of the biggest, if not the biggest, barriers to disabled people finding work is a doubt that they could do the job anyway, from both the disabled person themselves and prospective employees, so i propose a scheme where when a disabled person applies for a job they are given a trial run in the job, say a month, paid for by the state, so that it doesnt cost the employer, particularly if if things for whatever reason dont work out in having to re advertise the job. This kind of scheme would allow both parties to see what the disabled person could or could not do and work out any kinks so to speak, and would, im sure, result in both parties looking at disability differently. Much better than one or both parties just flat out saying oh i'm/youre in a wheelchair, i/you cant do that. that is the attitude that stops disabled people working.
I realise that these things cost money, but, as i said, in the long run they would pay for themselves by allowing more disabled people to work and gain the confidence to realise they can work, And also show employers and other able bodied individuals that disabled people are not incapable given some support through DLA and in work adaptations
To help encourage people back ito work, or into work for the first time give them the following financial incentives:
1st Month back at work 100% of their benefits
2-3 Months back at work 50% of their benefits
4-6 months back at work 25% of their benefits
7-12 months back at work 10% of their benefits
Going back to work can be difficult with childcare, travel, etc…This would support and encourage people. If you slowly remove their dependancy on benefits it should be less likely they will return to the support of the welfare state.
Why is this idea important?
To help encourage people back ito work, or into work for the first time give them the following financial incentives:
1st Month back at work 100% of their benefits
2-3 Months back at work 50% of their benefits
4-6 months back at work 25% of their benefits
7-12 months back at work 10% of their benefits
Going back to work can be difficult with childcare, travel, etc…This would support and encourage people. If you slowly remove their dependancy on benefits it should be less likely they will return to the support of the welfare state.
There are many jobs advertised in Employment Centres, Agencies and Job Websites. I suggest the Government drafts a code of practice to reward companies who take on people looking for work, and shame companies who advertise but don't fill the vacancies.
This might stop false job advertising / exagerating of numbers of vacancies by some Agencies.
This would encourage employers to train and bring unemployment down.
This would bring more legitimate tax payers contributing to the economic recovery.
For those who are long term unemployed, pay an enhanced job-seekers allowance for those who volunteer to do community work or assist charities. Those who decline such opportunities should have their benefits reduced.
Why is this idea important?
There are many jobs advertised in Employment Centres, Agencies and Job Websites. I suggest the Government drafts a code of practice to reward companies who take on people looking for work, and shame companies who advertise but don't fill the vacancies.
This might stop false job advertising / exagerating of numbers of vacancies by some Agencies.
This would encourage employers to train and bring unemployment down.
This would bring more legitimate tax payers contributing to the economic recovery.
For those who are long term unemployed, pay an enhanced job-seekers allowance for those who volunteer to do community work or assist charities. Those who decline such opportunities should have their benefits reduced.
Exempt employers who employ less than 10 employees from all labour laws including laws relating to contracts of employment, job security, equality, wages, hours, collective labour laws, maternity pay, paternity pay, statutory sick pay, etc.
Why is this idea important?
Exempt employers who employ less than 10 employees from all labour laws including laws relating to contracts of employment, job security, equality, wages, hours, collective labour laws, maternity pay, paternity pay, statutory sick pay, etc.
The single most difficult obstacle to growing a successful business in the UK is Employment Law designed for the likes of British Aerospace being imposed on small and even one man band enterprises.
Unemployment could be drastically reduced if this was removed completely for small enterprises and introduced in sensible stages up to the large corporations it was designed for.
See reasons below-
Why is this idea important?
The single most difficult obstacle to growing a successful business in the UK is Employment Law designed for the likes of British Aerospace being imposed on small and even one man band enterprises.
Unemployment could be drastically reduced if this was removed completely for small enterprises and introduced in sensible stages up to the large corporations it was designed for.
There are two important issues that stimulates re-offending. The first is a lack of suitable accomodation and the second being unable to secure meaningful employment.
Ex-offenders are required to declare all unspent criminal convictions if asked on an application form. Research undertaken by CIPD (Chartered Institute for Professional Development) and the Social Exclusion Unit (Previously based in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) acknowledges that the vast majority of employers disregard applications where declarations of criminal convictions are provided, regardless of the position that an ex-offender is applying for.
Would there be some merit in including ex-offenders in equality law to ensure that disposing of application forms soley on a criminal record being declared is simply not acceptable? Whilst I appreciate that some may argue that equality law is not about what 'one' has done but is about who one is I would suggest that the disproportional number of BME boys in prison reflects that in some cases people are more likely to obtain a criminal record than others because of who they are.
Why is this idea important?
There are two important issues that stimulates re-offending. The first is a lack of suitable accomodation and the second being unable to secure meaningful employment.
Ex-offenders are required to declare all unspent criminal convictions if asked on an application form. Research undertaken by CIPD (Chartered Institute for Professional Development) and the Social Exclusion Unit (Previously based in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) acknowledges that the vast majority of employers disregard applications where declarations of criminal convictions are provided, regardless of the position that an ex-offender is applying for.
Would there be some merit in including ex-offenders in equality law to ensure that disposing of application forms soley on a criminal record being declared is simply not acceptable? Whilst I appreciate that some may argue that equality law is not about what 'one' has done but is about who one is I would suggest that the disproportional number of BME boys in prison reflects that in some cases people are more likely to obtain a criminal record than others because of who they are.