Orient on the cheap

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Unpaid ones, yes. Everyone should be paid for their work.

So when I worked unpaid in a school for four years I was being exploited, despite the amazing satisfaction I got out of it. And hospital visitors or prison visitors should get paid for the work they do. And political party workers who contribute their time for free should get paid. Not to mention those people who drive the sick and elderly to and from hospitals as volunteers should get paid for their work.

Sounds like a well thought out solution Max.

You are now comparing apples with oranges. We won this debate. You lost. Suck it up.

I think it because I won that you are taking this tone, trying to convince yourself Max.

[bobo66]

https://www.leytonorient.com/2019/10/14 ... -reporter/

Perhaps he could be first team manager as well. Think of the money we would save!

[Max B Gold]

So when I worked unpaid in a school for four years I was being exploited, despite the amazing satisfaction I got out of it. And hospital visitors or prison visitors should get paid for the work they do. And political party workers who contribute their time for free should get paid. Not to mention those people who drive the sick and elderly to and from hospitals as volunteers should get paid for their work.

Sounds like a well thought out solution Max.

You are now comparing apples with oranges. We won this debate. You lost. Suck it up.

I think it because I won that you are taking this tone, trying to convince yourself Max.

Now you're just being a bad loser. I would have thought you would be used to it by now.

[LittleMate]

You're talking bollocks but carry on.

His opportunity arose because of the advantages he had in life provided by a well off family and not from the internship.

Max you are being really silly mate. There are two issues here, the first being the value of internships and beyond doubt for many people they are a bloody good thing. That Max is beyond sensible dispute.

The second point is whether or not they help those who can afford it. Sure. But unless you support a race to the bottom that’s the way it is, pity.

More bollocks but carry on.

As RedO says nobody is disputing the value of internships. In fact my son did one over the summer for a famous politician and didn't get paid except for Ex's. He couldn't have done it were he not supported by his parents.

Therefore, the point that people who do not have that privilege are excluded from providing their labour for free to highly profitable capitalist enterprises.

Your second paragraph is just utter bollocks and I'm not even going to bother replying to it. Your quest to troll has robbed you of the ability to argue rationally.

Your son's internship was probably as a result of your priveleged position within the labour movement. Priveleges come in many forms.....

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

So when I worked unpaid in a school for four years I was being exploited, despite the amazing satisfaction I got out of it. And hospital visitors or prison visitors should get paid for the work they do. And political party workers who contribute their time for free should get paid. Not to mention those people who drive the sick and elderly to and from hospitals as volunteers should get paid for their work.

Sounds like a well thought out solution Max.

You are now comparing apples with oranges. We won this debate. You lost. Suck it up.

I think it because I won that you are taking this tone, trying to convince yourself Max.

Max is clearly right. You’ve lost this one, again.

[Max B Gold]

Max you are being really silly mate. There are two issues here, the first being the value of internships and beyond doubt for many people they are a bloody good thing. That Max is beyond sensible dispute.

The second point is whether or not they help those who can afford it. Sure. But unless you support a race to the bottom that’s the way it is, pity.

More bollocks but carry on.

As RedO says nobody is disputing the value of internships. In fact my son did one over the summer for a famous politician and didn't get paid except for Ex's. He couldn't have done it were he not supported by his parents.

Therefore, the point that people who do not have that privilege are excluded from providing their labour for free to highly profitable capitalist enterprises.

Your second paragraph is just utter bollocks and I'm not even going to bother replying to it. Your quest to troll has robbed you of the ability to argue rationally.

Your son's internship was probably as a result of your priveleged position within the labour movement. Priveleges come in many forms.....

Read what I said above. I don't deny having that kind of privelege nor being well off enough to have created so many advantages for my son.

But that's not what my point was. I was speaking up for the many who don't have those privileges not the few who do.

FWIW - I had no hand in obtaining the internship as I consider the politician concerned to be a mortal enemy and I suspect they know it.

[BiggsyMalone]

This thread wasn’t about the merits of unpaid internships, it was about Orient specifying they want students doing degrees to work for them without paying them or even paying travel costs. There won’t be a full time job at the end of it, otherwise they’d be looking for a full time employee.

[Max B Gold]

This thread wasn’t about the merits of unpaid internships, it was about Orient specifying they want students doing degrees to work for them without paying them or even paying travel costs. There won’t be a full time job at the end of it, otherwise they’d be looking for a full time employee.

So it's worse than we thought.

Note to self: read OP before diving in.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

This thread wasn’t about the merits of unpaid internships, it was about Orient specifying they want students doing degrees to work for them without paying them or even paying travel costs. There won’t be a full time job at the end of it, otherwise they’d be looking for a full time employee.

Threads deviation, what a shock. To be fair some threads deviate to points far more interesting than the OP.

Given your description it’s a non issue as nobody will apply.

[Red_Army]

This thread wasn’t about the merits of unpaid internships, it was about Orient specifying they want students doing degrees to work for them without paying them or even paying travel costs. There won’t be a full time job at the end of it, otherwise they’d be looking for a full time employee.

Threads deviation, what a shock. To be fair some threads deviate to points far more interesting than the OP.

Given your description it’s a non issue as nobody will apply.

Nobody is saying this type of work doesn't benefit the individuals who are able to take it. What we are saying is that it is unfair and exploitative.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

This thread wasn’t about the merits of unpaid internships, it was about Orient specifying they want students doing degrees to work for them without paying them or even paying travel costs. There won’t be a full time job at the end of it, otherwise they’d be looking for a full time employee.

Threads deviation, what a shock. To be fair some threads deviate to points far more interesting than the OP.

Given your description it’s a non issue as nobody will apply.

Nobody is saying this type of work doesn't benefit the individuals who are able to take it. What we are saying is that it is unfair and exploitative.

The 'exploitative' angle is secondary. This is about the advantage it gives children with rich parents over their poorer counterparts.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Threads deviation, what a shock. To be fair some threads deviate to points far more interesting than the OP.

Given your description it’s a non issue as nobody will apply.

Nobody is saying this type of work doesn't benefit the individuals who are able to take it. What we are saying is that it is unfair and exploitative.

The 'exploitative' angle is secondary. This is about the advantage it gives children with rich parents over their poorer counterparts.

So we should ban such things because some people can’t afford it?

[BiggsyMalone]

Nobody is saying this type of work doesn't benefit the individuals who are able to take it. What we are saying is that it is unfair and exploitative.

The 'exploitative' angle is secondary. This is about the advantage it gives children with rich parents over their poorer counterparts.

So we should ban such things because some people can’t afford it?

No, but at least offer to pay for travel expenses so nobody could be out of pocket. It’s not like the club are hard up for £50 a week expenses.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

The 'exploitative' angle is secondary. This is about the advantage it gives children with rich parents over their poorer counterparts.

So we should ban such things because some people can’t afford it?

No, but at least offer to pay for travel expenses so nobody could be out of pocket. It’s not like the club are hard up for £50 a week expenses.

Agree with that. No issue with it not being a salaried position but expenses should be covered.

[Byways1]

Why are you so wrong on practically everything?

This is not about those that can afford it. This is about them being a barrier to those who CANNOT afford it.

Which is why I said there are two different arguments. The value of internships is beyond doubt good. The barrier thing, is a different matter and one that I have some sympathy with.

The question then becomes do we ban internships because some people cannot afford them? Is that morally justified or just a case of if everybody can’t do it then nobody should.

There are people out there who can’t afford a foreign holiday, so let’s ban them for everybody.

More bollocks. We don't ban them we legislate to ensure they are paid for by the employers.

Well said.
Idiots like this support this race to the bottom. Another load of crap imported from America.
What this country need is strong Trade Unions to represent working people and stop this exploitation.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Which is why I said there are two different arguments. The value of internships is beyond doubt good. The barrier thing, is a different matter and one that I have some sympathy with.

The question then becomes do we ban internships because some people cannot afford them? Is that morally justified or just a case of if everybody can’t do it then nobody should.

There are people out there who can’t afford a foreign holiday, so let’s ban them for everybody.

More bollocks. We don't ban them we legislate to ensure they are paid for by the employers.

Well said.
Idiots like this support this race to the bottom. Another load of crap imported from America.
What this country need is strong Trade Unions to represent working people and stop this exploitation.

I find it funny that people roll out all the insults and crap without putting up any form of case to support their opinion. Sad.

[PoundhillO]

Which is why I said there are two different arguments. The value of internships is beyond doubt good. The barrier thing, is a different matter and one that I have some sympathy with.

The question then becomes do we ban internships because some people cannot afford them? Is that morally justified or just a case of if everybody can’t do it then nobody should.

There are people out there who can’t afford a foreign holiday, so let’s ban them for everybody.

More bollocks. We don't ban them we legislate to ensure they are paid for by the employers.

Well said.
Idiots like this support this race to the bottom. Another load of crap imported from America.
What this country need is strong Trade Unions to represent working people and stop this exploitation.

Spot on !

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Nobody is saying this type of work doesn't benefit the individuals who are able to take it. What we are saying is that it is unfair and exploitative.

The 'exploitative' angle is secondary. This is about the advantage it gives children with rich parents over their poorer counterparts.

So we should ban such things because some people can’t afford it?

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is you being genuinely stupid, not wumming.

It’s not about banning ‘things’. It’s about trying to ensure everyone has the same opportunities in life, regardless of their parents wealth.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

The 'exploitative' angle is secondary. This is about the advantage it gives children with rich parents over their poorer counterparts.

So we should ban such things because some people can’t afford it?

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is you being genuinely stupid, not wumming.

It’s not about banning ‘things’. It’s about trying to ensure everyone has the same opportunities in life, regardless of their parents wealth.

It’s not being stupid or wumming, it’s about drawing out sensible debate, though on this forum my style, or lack of, don’t get results. The insults generally roll in before people choose to engage their brain.

So at last someone has the right idea stated in the right way. And it’s pretty fecking obvious. My persistence in asking do we ban something because some can’t afford it has been begging for this reply. You don’t ban things because some people can’t afford it you work towards making opportunities available to the widest range of people. And not in some anti rich, anti company way.

Moving on, the question is how you achieve that. People from rich families, or those families willing and able to make sacrifices for then kids are always likely to have an advantage. I’m not too sure how you reasonably stop that. So how to support the less better off? That is the issue.

[Max B Gold]

So we should ban such things because some people can’t afford it?

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is you being genuinely stupid, not wumming.

It’s not about banning ‘things’. It’s about trying to ensure everyone has the same opportunities in life, regardless of their parents wealth.

It’s not being stupid or wumming, it’s about drawing out sensible debate, though on this forum my style, or lack of, don’t get results. The insults generally roll in before people choose to engage their brain.

So at last someone has the right idea stated in the right way. And it’s pretty fecking obvious. My persistence in asking do we ban something because some can’t afford it has been begging for this reply. You don’t ban things because some people can’t afford it you work towards making opportunities available to the widest range of people. And not in some anti rich, anti company way.

Moving on, the question is how you achieve that. People from rich families, or those families willing and able to make sacrifices for then kids are always likely to have an advantage. I’m not too sure how you reasonably stop that. So how to support the less better off? That is the issue.

The answer is of course a society based on full blown anarchist ideas.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is you being genuinely stupid, not wumming.

It’s not about banning ‘things’. It’s about trying to ensure everyone has the same opportunities in life, regardless of their parents wealth.

It’s not being stupid or wumming, it’s about drawing out sensible debate, though on this forum my style, or lack of, don’t get results. The insults generally roll in before people choose to engage their brain.

So at last someone has the right idea stated in the right way. And it’s pretty fecking obvious. My persistence in asking do we ban something because some can’t afford it has been begging for this reply. You don’t ban things because some people can’t afford it you work towards making opportunities available to the widest range of people. And not in some anti rich, anti company way.

Moving on, the question is how you achieve that. People from rich families, or those families willing and able to make sacrifices for then kids are always likely to have an advantage. I’m not too sure how you reasonably stop that. So how to support the less better off? That is the issue.

The answer is of course a society based on full blown anarchist ideas.

To be honest Max I was hoping from the start to get into a decent debate on a difficult subject. But the usual insults and stupidity kicked in so right now I can’t be arsed with it. Shame really.

[Max B Gold]

Might I suggest that you introduced most of the stupid replies.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

So we should ban such things because some people can’t afford it?

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is you being genuinely stupid, not wumming.

It’s not about banning ‘things’. It’s about trying to ensure everyone has the same opportunities in life, regardless of their parents wealth.

It’s not being stupid or wumming, it’s about drawing out sensible debate, though on this forum my style, or lack of, don’t get results. The insults generally roll in before people choose to engage their brain.

So at last someone has the right idea stated in the right way. And it’s pretty fecking obvious. My persistence in asking do we ban something because some can’t afford it has been begging for this reply. You don’t ban things because some people can’t afford it you work towards making opportunities available to the widest range of people. And not in some anti rich, anti company way.

Moving on, the question is how you achieve that. People from rich families, or those families willing and able to make sacrifices for then kids are always likely to have an advantage. I’m not too sure how you reasonably stop that. So how to support the less better off? That is the issue.

With regards to this particular issue, by making sure all work is paid. That way those able to initially work for free to get their foot in the door are no longer able to use that to their advantage.

With regards to inequality generally, there are lots of words already written on the matter.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Might I suggest that you introduced most of the stupid replies.

I’m sure you’re right Max. If that’s how you understood them it’s fine by me. Next time I’ll dumb down what I say.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is you being genuinely stupid, not wumming.

It’s not about banning ‘things’. It’s about trying to ensure everyone has the same opportunities in life, regardless of their parents wealth.

It’s not being stupid or wumming, it’s about drawing out sensible debate, though on this forum my style, or lack of, don’t get results. The insults generally roll in before people choose to engage their brain.

So at last someone has the right idea stated in the right way. And it’s pretty fecking obvious. My persistence in asking do we ban something because some can’t afford it has been begging for this reply. You don’t ban things because some people can’t afford it you work towards making opportunities available to the widest range of people. And not in some anti rich, anti company way.

Moving on, the question is how you achieve that. People from rich families, or those families willing and able to make sacrifices for then kids are always likely to have an advantage. I’m not too sure how you reasonably stop that. So how to support the less better off? That is the issue.

With regards to this particular issue, by making sure all work is paid. That way those able to initially work for free to get their foot in the door are no longer able to use that to their advantage.

With regards to inequality generally, there are lots of words already written on the matter.

Or the number of available jobs will reduce with employers unwilling to fund vast numbers of staff who contribute very little yet take up significant amounts of management time helping with their training.