Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • And as for “what if I get sick the last week” (or those last three days)......   well, you’d get sick pay. Would you go into your new workplace?   HMRC may not be bothered by 2 overlapping jobs of course, but if NHS CFS (counter fraud And security) noticed that either: a) you were claiming over-lapping sick pay for 2 jobs, or b) you were claiming sick pay for one job while well enough to turn in for the other: expect them to view at least one of the sick pay claims as fraudulent!   if you annoy your “difficult” manager : they might be difficult enough to highlight it for the local NHS CF specialist
    • Hello, Can someone advise if the attached is a valid charge please?  I had parked in the car park and paid but then got delayed and have ended up with a ticket for parking longer than I should have done.   I know they will refuse the appeal but is this charge enforceable?   Charge Notice.pdf
    • The dealer is called Carwise in Epping. It's not the most established of premises. When i was there i'd say there was about 10-15 cars inside and an office. I've seen these reviews of them which seem to replicate my experience. https://www.cardealerreviews.co.uk/dealership/hr-autos-epping-essex-england (note previous name). It's quite worrying.    
    • To me, it isn't just about social distancing and hygiene measures. I'm far from the first to say it but until there's a reliable track and trace system, I don't think this can be managed properly.   Children may not suffer as much as adults, although some do, they can be asymptomatic and pass on the virus to the rest of the family.   https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/lockdown-david-king-second-wave-18739973
    • When will most schools actually re-open in September ?   And when they open, will they be providing teaching over the number hours 9am to 3pm  ?   I am thinking of the school I attended, which was a large Victorian building, with many modern extensions.  The classrooms which could accommodate about 35 Children elbow to elbow, will only be able to accommodate 20 at the most with any reasonable distancing.   Or does the whole class  of say 35 stay in a bubble and the teachers move around to teach the different subjects ?    I can see many schools opening later in September, not for all pupils for all days and not doing the full hours.   This is going to be very difficult to manage for all those concerned, including parents looking to return to work.     
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 9 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies
naz_zzz

dwp forcing me into a job

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3673 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi people,

Can someone please help me...,I have been on job seekers allowance for the last 6 months and have been actively looking for work but unable to find the job that suits me finacially or expereinced wise.

I was informed by a jobcentre adviser that i need to change my job descriptions im looking for and that they will force me into any job as long as it pays national mimnium wage.

 

Can they force me into any job?? Is this true??

Bulling tackick does that work??:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mrs Hobbit

If you lived in the States or other places your benefits would be cut off now.

 

Sometimes you have to take what is on offer and keep looking for what you want. The longer you are out of work, the harder it will be to find what you want.

 

Have you thought of employment agencies and temp work, to keep your skills up to date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mrs Hobbit thanks for your reply.

 

I am updated within the industires i am looking for, also various agencies and job sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I worked at the jobcentre some 15 years ago, there was a limit of 13 weeks in which you were allowed to restrict your jobsearch to the type of work you did previously. After that, claimants were expected to take anything.


If my posts have been helpful, please click the star icon and add to my reputation points. Thanks! :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't force you to take a job, no. When you first claim JSA you can restrict your jobsearch to your own preferences but once you have been on JSA for this length of time, you are expected to expand your jobsearch in order to take up reasonable offers of employment and if you refuse to do so then yes, they can sanction your benefit.

 

Refusing to apply for a job will not result in a sanction if it is accepted that you have good cause in not applying for it. In general, refusing to apply for a job because they pay is less than you would like and being unwilling to accept new opportunities because you don't feel it suits your experience is not considered good cause.

 

Being on the minimum wage in a job you hate isn't a barrel of laughs (been there!) but Mrs Hobbit is correct in that it is harder to secure work the longer you are unemployed. Employers generally are more willing to take on someone who is working or has recently worked than someone who has been out of work for a period - benefit stigma, I call it.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Employers generally are more willing to take on someone who is working or has recently worked than someone who has been out of work for a period - benefit stigma, I call it.

 

It was common knowledge, more decades ago than I care to confess! that it was easier to find work once you are in work than when you are out of it. [Quite] awhile ago I worked for BT. We used many agency staff back then and the majority of permanent staff came from that agency pool because they knew the job.

Best wishes

Rae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your help people, i have widen my jobsearch before speaking to the adviser at jobcentre.

i think he was just trying to be a bully, even though i informed him i was thinking and looking out side my agreement with the jobcentre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can't force you to take a job, no. When you first claim JSA you can restrict your jobsearch to your own preferences but once you have been on JSA for this length of time, you are expected to expand your jobsearch in order to take up reasonable offers of employment and if you refuse to do so then yes, they can sanction your benefit.

 

Refusing to apply for a job will not result in a sanction if it is accepted that you have good cause in not applying for it. In general, refusing to apply for a job because they pay is less than you would like and being unwilling to accept new opportunities because you don't feel it suits your experience is not considered good cause.

 

Being on the minimum wage in a job you hate isn't a barrel of laughs (been there!) but Mrs Hobbit is correct in that it is harder to secure work the longer you are unemployed. Employers generally are more willing to take on someone who is working or has recently worked than someone who has been out of work for a period - benefit stigma, I call it.

So they can in fact force you to take a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they cannot. If a claimant doesn't want a job and fails to apply or fails to accept a reasonable offer of employment, a decision maker will look at the factors. If the claimant had good cause to turn down the employment or refuse to apply (such as on the grounds of religion for example), and the decison maker agrees, they should not receive a sanction. If however they decide there was no good cause, then they will sanction the benefit. That isn't forcing a person to take a job. That's a penalty for unreasonable refusal, the possibility of which the claimant is made aware of from the outset, and is a choice (risk) a claimant takes. When claiming Jobseekers Allowance, funnily enough, a person is expected to seek a job. If they refuse to seek jobs within reason, then they are not entitled.

 

In the first period they can restrict their jobsearch. After that period if they have been unsuccessful in obtaining employment using the restrictions, then the restrictions must be removed in order to increase the possibility of finding work. (and it stands to reason too). Only minimum sanctions should apply the first time but if a person repeatedly refuses, the sanctions will become longer.

 

I wont kid on - I have seen people unfairly sanctioned but those people whom I have assisted in appealing have been successful in having the sanction lifted, because they can't just sanction for no reason.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest this question is really about forcing people into work they don't want. That is not regarded as a good enough reason by the DWP, consequently they will stop your money. So, in real terms, they can force you into a job.

 

I don't agree with the system, i think it's ass-backwards. But they can force you into work because they force you to apply for whatever work (or that which passes for it) on their system when you sign on.

 

And i've been through their sanctioning/decision making process; it's biased at best.

 

Also be aware they stop your money the instant there is a 'doubt' as to your claim (which is the technical term for breaking the JSA - not looking for work). You can appeal, but until that time you get no money. The appeal may overturn the decision and backdate your claim or it might reduce the weight of the sanction allowing some money through (which in some cases is hardly better than none). If you have your money stopped you might be legible for hardship rate (about 40% of regular dole). If you aren't legible you starve. It's that simple, and that cruel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's be honest this question is really about forcing people into work they don't want. That is not regarded as a good enough reason by the DWP, consequently they will stop your money.

 

There is very little that I agree with in the system. However, one thing I do agree with is sanctions where a person has no good reason for not wishing to take work, such as "I don't want to work as a cleaner", as opposed to "I can't work as a cleaner because....."

 

There is a difference between being unwilling and unable, and a difference between reasonable and unreasonable.

 

I wasn't particularly willing to work in a pub. Nothing wrong with it, just wasn't something I felt particularly suited to, nor felt I would enjoy. I also wasn't keen on the pay (NMW) but nor did I feel that it would be reasonable for me to refuse when I and my then partner were living on £50 per week provided by the state (that was the amount back then). So I took it. It did me until I found a job I wanted at a rate of pay I wanted. I didn't feel justified in living off the state when I could earn my own money (and have more income) simply because I didn't particularly want to work in a bar.

 

In my view it is not acceptable to refuse a job without having a justifiable reason other than "I don't fancy it/don't think I'd like it" and there should be sanctions in place for this, so I am glad that there are. If there weren't, there would be far more people refusing to take responsibility for themselves and it is this which causes the stigmatism in benefits. It is this which annoys me when I see people wrongly refused ESA when they are clearly incapable of working at all. That is a reason to complain and fight the system. Expecting the state to provide an income when the person has been jobseeking for months and been unsuccessful then finds that there is a job out there to take and not taking it just because "I don't fancy it/the wages are less than I want" is not reason to complain and fight the system. Why should the state support a person purely because they "don't want" to take a particular type of job? The state is there as a safety net for people who have no other option, it's not there to support people who have options but don't want to take them. And yes, I do believe that there should be penalties in place for people who have options but refuse to take them and expect the state to go on supporting them.

 

But those sanctions should be used reasonably and when they are not then yes, they should be fought against, and complained about. That is the issue I take with the system, when people are unfairly sanctioned thorugh no fault of their own.

 

In any case, this is turning into a bit of a discussion now and detracting from the OP's post - which I apologise for.

 

The question was "can they force me into a job?" The answer is no they can't but they can stop your benefit for a period if you don't take a job and have no good cause for the refusal. If you feel that is forcing you into a job then the answer is yes, they can.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last job I had I got through a work experience scheam while on new deal. did 12 weeks on jsa + £15. they wanted to keep me and had 6 other drivers that had started full time fron this scheam in the past. the manager told me the first week I was better than the usual dead heads, p*** heads and junkies they usually get and the 6 they did take on wernt a patch on me. They wanted me full time but didnt have a full time job for 6 months. the training providers went to an agency in the city that arranged for me to stay their for 6 months on minium wage, the company paid half the wage and the agency paid the other half. the biggest draw back was I could only work 37hrs. I was flexible with these hours and even did a couple of hours on a weekend cash in hand. the company closed that section down 3 weeks before the 6 months were up every one was laid off except me they kept me for the last 3 weeks of my 6 months to help clear the yard. the manager said if it had been any one else I would have gone with the others but unlike the others when told the company was closing I didnt get bitter and take it out on the manager, who to be fair had no control over the closure. I also still did my job still turnned up on time. when I finaly left I was 1 of 2 people who the manager gave his phone number to and promissed a glowing reference, this was after 9 months work. thats 2 people with references out of 12 staff most of whom had been their for years.

 

The thing is the job was below me I was way over qualified and the money was crap but I still gave it my best. thats why the training provider was told I was the only one they ever sent their who had any work ethic.

 

my point been (as long winded as it is) the money may not be good but filling a void in your cv and the references you get if you give it your best are worth it. Your also in a position to here about jobs from the customers.

 

And of course the satisfaction of doing a good job and having somewhere to go every day is nice as well.

  • Haha 1

I was told life was supposed to be one long learning curve.

Mines more a series of hairpin bends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, What happens then to the people who have had a reasonable job and are paying a mortgage, they lose their job and the DWP pay the mortgage interest and JSA.

If they are then forced into a minimum wage job then the mortgage interest stops getting paid and the person would lose their house.

That cannot be fair, if a person is renting they would get help.

People with mortgages are at a disadvantage already because they have more insurances to pay from their pitiful benefits.

People cannot be prepared for this kind of thing. Most peoples wages dont make it possible to save for a rainy day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A renter on NMW would not automatically get their rent paid for them; I pay £153.76 more per month for my rented property than my friend pays for her mortgage. She is in a full time job at NMW and manages her monthly mortgage repayments. When I was on NMW I struggled to pay my rent and didn't qualify for any help with my rent because the wage took me over the threshold.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but what would happen if they were forced into a job that would not pay the mortgage, that was my question.

It would be unfair for a family to lose their house and as soon as interest goes up that is what is going to happen just like the 80's.

This probably stops a lot of people getting a job, its not the tax payers who should be paying the interest on mortgages but people cannot help it.

I live in Berkshire where everything is more expensive, rent and houses are ridiculous but the benefits are the same and so is the minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very good point, sj01. Also, mortgage interest is only paid if a person qualifies for income based benefit, not contributory based benefit which is often what a person who has worked all their days qualifies for. If they are entitled to income based benefit, it's not paid for the first 13 weeks of their claim, and is paid only for a maximum of two years.

 

Anyway on to answering your question. Believe it or not, it's outlined in the sanction guide that it is not termed good cause for a claimant to refuse an offer of employment because of their income or outgoings, such as very high financial commitments or the claimant or another member of the household will lose the right to other benefits etc which are available to job seekers, except where the employment is paid only by commission or the claimant has agreed a restriction on the level of pay because the claimant is in the permitted period or has a physical or mental condition.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it comes to it apply for the jobs they say and if you get an interview screw it up its easy done, I just start going on about the time ill need of for blood test and my 6 monthly retinal scans thats usually a job killer.


I was told life was supposed to be one long learning curve.

Mines more a series of hairpin bends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as I said, the JC can force you into a job. Splitting hairs over this point seems counter productive. If the choice is applying for a job you don't want and destitution through sanctions then there's no choice at all and the DWP are forcing you to apply.

 

If this is the best this silly government can do for people then it's no wodner society has so many problems. People should be helped into meangingul propductive and rewarding work, not into whatever crap the DWP can be bothered to advertise and pressgang people into,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately the systems set up with dead head scroungers in mind, its geared to get these of their bumps and into work unfortunately it dosnt leave a lot of manuvering room for people such as yourself. their are ways and means around this as proved by the number of dead head scroungers on the dole. you just need to think your way through it. if JC think your trying they will not push you just try not to give them attitude or youll get their backs up.


I was told life was supposed to be one long learning curve.

Mines more a series of hairpin bends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL the JC is good for is causing problems it seems to me. They certainly don't help. I'm not sure what a 'dead head scrounger' is. Sounds like prejudice to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wishface,

Its not prejudice, we all know people who could work but don't want to.

I worked in a post office for a few years and its a real eye opener.

I do think though that there should be a living wage and the minimum wage is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mrs Hobbit

Nothing to do with this particular forum but in an obtuse way it has. The Hobbits went on a honeymoon cruise four weeks ago. It has to do with gratuities for the crew. When we got the bumph and the tickets it was propsed that the gratuities were paid up front and loaded on to the credit card which was to used on board. Now that to me is red rag to a bull. This was not a cheap cruise in any way, so why gratuities? We found out, I am good forum reader and people posting about the particular ship mentioned this subject. I went up to the Guest Relations desk and asked outright, are the Staeroom attendants and waiting staff paid a wage. the answer was No. It is done by gratuities, it was suggested something lkike $3.60 oer day per guest and this includes children for the stateroom attendant and I forget the sliding scale for the Dining Room staff. These people sign on without a wage and have to rely on the tips from the guests for their wages. I suppose they are working, but what a way to ern your money, on handouts. We did pay our gratuties in Euros to the people who looked after us. Oh the drinks also had an automatic 15% surcharge when you oaid for them. This is the wages for the bar staff. No wonder we were encouraged to drink.

 

The Hobbits have decided no more Royal Caribbean cruises in the future. People have to be paid a wage. yes we are lucky to be able to afford a cruise, but after the heartbreak of the last five years, this was the light at the end of the tunnel for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing to do with this particular forum but in an obtuse way it has. The Hobbits went on a honeymoon cruise four weeks ago. It has to do with gratuities for the crew. When we got the bumph and the tickets it was propsed that the gratuities were paid up front and loaded on to the credit card which was to used on board. Now that to me is red rag to a bull. This was not a cheap cruise in any way, so why gratuities? We found out, I am good forum reader and people posting about the particular ship mentioned this subject. I went up to the Guest Relations desk and asked outright, are the Staeroom attendants and waiting staff paid a wage. the answer was No. It is done by gratuities, it was suggested something lkike $3.60 oer day per guest and this includes children for the stateroom attendant and I forget the sliding scale for the Dining Room staff. These people sign on without a wage and have to rely on the tips from the guests for their wages. I suppose they are working, but what a way to ern your money, on handouts. We did pay our gratuties in Euros to the people who looked after us. Oh the drinks also had an automatic 15% surcharge when you oaid for them. This is the wages for the bar staff. No wonder we were encouraged to drink.

 

The Hobbits have decided no more Royal Caribbean cruises in the future. People have to be paid a wage. yes we are lucky to be able to afford a cruise, but after the heartbreak of the last five years, this was the light at the end of the tunnel for me.

 

Thats why they use people from Goa and the philippines, if they used English they would be entitled to breaks, holidays and the minimum wage.

Some of these people haven't been home for a couple of years.

They all seem grateful for their jobs though. We are lucky in comparison but we do need a living wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago when I worked in a local jobcentre I remember a gentleman who came in every fortnight to sign on. His jobseekers agreeement (or equivalent) stated that he wanted to work as a writer or poet. From the longer term staff there I found out that he'd been signing onto unemployment benefit for more than 10 years with that job aim. He never considered any other type of employment during the whole time I worked there and AFAIK had not had any employment at all for many years.

 

Because of people like him the government brings in rules stating that people have to accept work outside their normal fields or wage after 6 months. This does not seem unreasonable... until you are the one in that situation. Now clearly the above example is extreme, but even recently I've had people turn down jobs I have found in jobsearches because the wage is too low, and the wage has been far more than twice my current salary.

 

So after being damned for allowing such people to live off the state without taking reasonable steps to find some form of work the government is then damned for trying to force people into work. Everyone has reasons for wanting to restrict their jobsearch, and until you've been in that situation its difficult to imagine that those reasons may be quite valid. If they did not have sanctions what would they say to those people who turn down good offers of employment - "take the job or I'll shake my finger at you next week" perhaps?

 

I'd quite like to work as a writer or in a museum, that would be meaningful to me. There's what I'd like to do, and what I have to do to earn a living. I don't particularly like my job or find it dreadfully rewarding but I took it because any job for £250 a week is better than £60 a week.

 

So I have no major problems with people being "forced" into work.

 

If this is the best this silly government can do for people then it's no wodner society has so many problems. People should be helped into meangingul propductive and rewarding work, not into whatever crap the DWP can be bothered to advertise and pressgang people into,.

 

The DWP will advertise just about anything that isn't illegal or discriminatory. I therefore don't see your point on it not being "bothered" to advertise meaningful work (whatever that means since its subjective) since there's generally quite a variety on there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Wishface,

Its not prejudice, we all know people who could work but don't want to.

I worked in a post office for a few years and its a real eye opener.

I do think though that there should be a living wage and the minimum wage is ridiculous.

the Citizens wage is an idea that would solve these problems overnight.

 

But i don't believe there are people that don't want to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3673 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...