News1 min ago
Employment At Record High!
40 Answers
... Claims May
However, BBC reality check asked the office for national statistics (ONS) whether working just one hour a week was all that was needed to be officially registered as employed.
The ONS confirmed that was the case.
However, BBC reality check asked the office for national statistics (ONS) whether working just one hour a week was all that was needed to be officially registered as employed.
The ONS confirmed that was the case.
Answers
Eh, 50,000 jobs were axed in the first half of 2018. 23,000 shops along with 170,000 jobs are forecast to be lost in 2019 , think the headline to this post" Employment At Record High " ? Just More Tory Lies.
11:45 Thu 24th Jan 2019
-Talbot is quite correct.....how can you have the BEST ANSWER when there is one only at the time and especially as it the ONLY answer.
BUT...we have been down this road before.
I have suggested to the management that it could well be organised that the Best Answer should only be allowed after one hour, but it fell on stoney ground.
BUT...we have been down this road before.
I have suggested to the management that it could well be organised that the Best Answer should only be allowed after one hour, but it fell on stoney ground.
It’s been known for ages that many people work far less than what is considered to be a “full” week. Some do this because there is nothing else for them. Many do it because it suits them. It also then allows them to claim Working Tax Credits if they work just sixteen hours per week (provided they have children). So, work just under half a week and the taxpayer pays you for the other half.
I wasn’t aware that working just one hour classes you as “employed” but it doesn’t surprise me. As well as that many professional people (doctors, lawyers, dentists, for example) are so well paid that they only need work half a week or less. My dentist works only two days a week and the last GP I saw only works one day a week. So it is no surprise that record numbers of people are “in employment”.
It is interesting to read of the person who was repeatedly sent home after reporting for work because there was nothing for him that day. This is really the modern day equivalent of the “docker’s call on” which was in place to a greater or lesser degree up until 1967. Dockers had to gather at the dock gates to be “called on” by the foremen for a day’s work. Many were left “on the cobbles” (i.e. without work) and ha to return home. The call on was undertaken two or even three times a day. It was the establishment of the National Dock Labour Board in 1947 that saw a decline in the practice but it continued to a lesser degree into the 1960s:
https:/
I wasn’t aware that working just one hour classes you as “employed” but it doesn’t surprise me. As well as that many professional people (doctors, lawyers, dentists, for example) are so well paid that they only need work half a week or less. My dentist works only two days a week and the last GP I saw only works one day a week. So it is no surprise that record numbers of people are “in employment”.
It is interesting to read of the person who was repeatedly sent home after reporting for work because there was nothing for him that day. This is really the modern day equivalent of the “docker’s call on” which was in place to a greater or lesser degree up until 1967. Dockers had to gather at the dock gates to be “called on” by the foremen for a day’s work. Many were left “on the cobbles” (i.e. without work) and ha to return home. The call on was undertaken two or even three times a day. It was the establishment of the National Dock Labour Board in 1947 that saw a decline in the practice but it continued to a lesser degree into the 1960s:
https:/
For the comparative ("better") and superlative ("best") to be meaningful there has to more than one option to choose from. Otherwise it is meaningless. In fact I would say that the superlative really needs a minimum of three choices since the best of two options can be described as "the better of the two". But I appreciate that AB cannot have such a differentiation.
However, we digress somewhat.
However, we digress somewhat.
It's actually impossible to get an accurate figure, you can count those claiming unemployment but that misses those who dont claim (Like I didnt) or you can try and count those registered to work, again that misses many out.
Both also miss out those working but should not be in the country and those working without declaring it.
All you can do is pick one method and stick to it to get a comparison.
Both also miss out those working but should not be in the country and those working without declaring it.
All you can do is pick one method and stick to it to get a comparison.
