(Untitled)

[no_ambiguity]

People constantly talk about the laziness of people who go on benefits rather than simply getting any job. It's probably true that it's possible for most people to find some sort of job, but the conditions in many casual jobs are often bloody appalling. Catering is a good example. I have worked as a catering assistant before in holidays from

Comments

[innocent_irony]

Meh.

I worked under "those conditions" for over three years, and personally? I loved it. I loved the whole working-hard, rushing about, being part of an active team.

Frankly, "those conditions" are ok to work under. You/one choose(es) to work there, you have many other options, but you do what "fits" you. For me - I was doing uni for part of that time - so it suited me to have odd hours and a role i could mould around my time (as much as it did likewise back). When I quit uni , i preferred a haphazard job as it gave me random mornings and random evenings free. I loved the 18hour shifts, and the mini perks - such as a meal, entrance to balls etc.

"Those conditions" are 100x better than other jobs you could work in. Look around. Every job anyone can do has bad points. Everyone who starts a role has read the job spec beforehand, and they know the territory.

[palmer1984]

Firstly I wasn't saying that it's impossible to enjoy these jobs. I loved one of my catering assistant jobs. I'm saying that the money is crap and the hours people are expected to work if they want to earn more money is appalling. And even then they don't get enough money for it. Conditions should be improved and there should be more flexibility from the standpoint of the workers. I'm not saying it's terrible, just that if you do it full time, and if you want to be promoted it takes over your life, and you end up working twice the hours that, for instance, an office worker would

[innocent_irony]

Not atall

[screenedout]

A very significant topic, which I have already given some thought, and some interesting comments.

You/one choose(es) to work there, you have many other options, but you do what "fits" you. [...] I don't, honestly, believe that anyone in this country is "forced" to do any form of job.

As no_ambiguity suggests below, I think the idea of 'choice' is not so clear cut. For instance, the current streamlining of the benefits system, and increasing use of recruitment agencies and temporary contracts enable this rhetoric of 'choice' and 'opportunity' to obscure an element of coercion by which the lower levels of employment are routinely managed, and kept both flexible and in place. This constant low-level insecurity and precarity - occasionally overwhelming but mostly so apparently trivial as to be taken for granted, something not to be complained about - allows the economic structure to maintain its security. In other words, institutional anxieties are delegated downwards

[oedipamaas49]

I'm not sure how to respond to this kind of thing. I know I wouldn't hate such jobs so much (certainly compared to being unemployed, which I have always found entirely soul-destroying), so I find it hard to empathise with those who do really hate them. Especially since improving working conditions through legislation will likely increase unemployment. i.e. if I were in the position where I could only get crap jobs, I wouldn't want good working conditions enforced by law. But that's just me; I guess the lesson is not to expect other people to have the same preferences as I do.

I do agree with the problem about losing benefits by taking on temporary or insecured work. Governments have been saying they'll fix that for as long as I can remember; it's pretty damn shoddy if that's still keeping people on the dole.

[palmer1984]

It's not about your personal preferences, It's about people in the 21st century in a rich country, in certain types of jobs, being forced to work 70 hours a week if they want to earn maybe £7ph. I don't see the problem with a small increase in unemployment (if that does indeed happen) to make that possible.

Also, have you actually done any of these jobs for an extended period of time (i.e. more than a holiday from school or university)? I have (for 9 months) and it's pretty unpleasant. Much worse than working in the holidays when you know you'll be back at university in the summer.

Also, there were two arguments really in my post. One was that people should not be forced to get one of these jobs and the second was that working conditions should be improved. You haven't responded to the former. I think there is no fucking way that people should be forced to work in such insecure jobs.

[oedipamaas49]

"being forced to work 70 hours a week"

In terms of not losing benefits, this surely isn't true, given the working time directive?

"if they want to earn maybe £7ph"
Is £7 per hour that bad? It's certainly more than I'm earning at the moment (although my working conditions are good and expenses are low).

No, I haven't worked at one of these jobs for an extended period of time. Nonetheless, I can say with great conviction that I would choose that over being unemployed for a long period of time.

"I think there is no fucking way that people should be forced to work in such insecure jobs."
I think they should be able to go back on benefits the moment they get fired, or that their hours get cut back.

[palmer1984]

re losing benefits possibly. I've had to sign forms opting out of the working time directive before, but I'm not sure that the job centre could take away benefits if you refused to.

You have to work 70 hours a week to earn £7ph. There is some level of coercion there, in that it's difficult to afford to live on £5-6ph.

I'll reply to the other points that you made later. Right now I'm so fucking angry that I can't imagine that I could reply without being horribly insulting.