job seekers and the unemployed

Pro said a lot of ideas, and I will argue against a number of them. So almost everything I say will be rebuttals. The purpose of my argument is to argue against reformation points she made. BOP is on Pro to prove how Pro's proposed changes would be beneficial to the country. I live in the US, not the UK, so their may be some discrepancies between assumed facts of society. Job-centre is extremely similar to job agencies in the US.Defintion-thing: (Less a defintion, more a term I am going to use)"Demo workers" - The job seekers that the Pro states that would work for free for a company for a period of time.Rebuttals to Points you made as I understood them:1. "The solution I have come up with revolves round the job centre as a repository of job vacancies, rather than a bureaucratic office where paperwork gets done for the sake of doing the paperwork...... The job centre would offer to all companies the opportunity to have someone who is currently out of work assigned to a position that they make available"Networking and online posting boards are the most common ways to find jobs currently. Job agencys (work similar to job centre but privatized) are a small margin of job hires. The shows a general trend towards hiring based on recommendation and resume, not from "demo workers". Going against the general trend of companies would more greatly disconnect the job centre and companies, hurting job seekers.A better idea might be focusing on education and training for the job seekers, qualifying them for a greater number of jobs to apply to and possibly be interested in. Employers tend to be more interested in some educating themself than someone milling out applications and waiting.http://www.forbes.com...http://www.linkedin.com...2. "No company would turn up its nose at free labour even if it is a bit unskilled"A machine is as fast as its slowest part.Employees are typically considered an investment by companies. Skilled employees do better work. Free labour, though free, still needs to be trained and would have a cost in training hours and/or unforseen work for other employees who help the free labour. This is part of the reason networking is so popular, you typically have a recommendation from an employee that is respected about the potential hire and their capabilites, instead of demoing someone random for a several months.3. "To encourage companies to hire the person after or before the 6 month period they would be prevented from submitting any more positions to the job centre until they have employed the individual with a 12 month cool-down if they decide not to hire the individual."This would honestly mean no companies would use this program. If the company demos someone that is unfit for the job, then they are punished for having ever demoed that person. The current regulation climate makes it really hard to fire, so why would you ever hire someone if you were not 100% sure they were the right person. You are punishing companies for trying to carefully hire the right individual. I just don't see companies using a program where they are pressured to hire people.This goes against the whole idea of the program. It pressures companies to take employees the company is not currently hiring. Companies would either opt out or have to keep taking in employees.4. " there are dozens maybe even hundreds of jobs in your local area that you can choose from rather than spending weeks or months sending CVs to no avail."Your reformation does not explain how the number of job openings would increase. Companies hire because they need more employees, not because they are just trying to hire people.5. "There would of course be some people that don't want to work but they will be a lot easier to distinguish and target if those that do want to work can."Your reformation proposes that their would be tons of job openings, so lazy people would be able to get jobs in this program. But referring to point 5, you would be punishing companies that demoed employees, so after demoing an unfit job seeker; the company is punished not the lazy job seeker.6. "Other benefits"The program does not explain why companies would target elderly and disabled more. 7. "Computers Vs. people"So the government should just hire a bunch of people to talk at the job centre and solve unemployment by hiring people?As computers become more sophsiticated and can more easily replace people, we as people should get better are working with computers. Also they are cheaper, so the government should solve unemplyment by hiring people?8. "The wealth and power of late has increasingly been moving away from the majority towards an increasingly elite, rich and powerful minority, this needs to be reversed, the whole point of a democracy is to give power to the people."One person = One VoteMajority wins. Power to the people.9. "largely the point is not to, in fact, tax these products (in most cases) but to tax money going out of the country to avoid a situation where imports outweigh exports."So money that leaves the country. Money leaving the country is typically used to pay for the goods coming into the country. So..... what? How does this relate to the job centre anyways?10. "richest in society much easier as it removes their threat of simply taking all their money and leaving the country."What right do you or the country has to deciding where someone lives? If they want to leave, they should be allowed to leave. This actually discriminates against the wealthy, which is just as unjust as discruminating agianst the poor.""any business can replace their over payed executives if needed with people who are likely at least as good."If companies could pay their executives less, they would. That way the company would save on a huge amount. Learn what CEOs do and you will understand why they are paid so much. When everything about the company ends up relying on one persons decisions, the person better as hell be the best thier is.http://www.steverrobbins.com...11. "If you cut the income of the richest 10% by 50% you could double the income of the poorest 50% and still have a lot left over, surely it makes sense to annoy 10% of your voters to practically guarantee getting the vote from 50% of them"Sure cut the richest 10% by 50%, then they will move to a country that doesn't redistribute their wealth. Also lets not get started on the immoral practice of taxing the few by such a steep margin. Why work to earn 100k a year if you will have the same income as some one working for 50k a year?