Something For Nothing!

[strings]

These schemes are good ideas, as long as they are properly managed. Poundland used the government work experience for jobseekers scheme as an opportunity to replace paid employees with 'free labour' supplied by the government.

I have nothing against jobseekers receiving training or work experience to help them get in the job market. I just think it is counter productive if that work experience is at the expense of someone else's job.

 

[gazingdown]

If they lose their benefits and can't work, are you suggesting they starve?

No if they can't work, yes if they won't work.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

No if they can't work, yes if they won't work.

How can you prove that someone "wont work". Do you regard sending people out to "work" on schemes where they do not get paid for it is actual work? Can you make a good case in a court of law for suggesting someone "wont work" therefore society leaves them to starve? What about the dependants of that person...should they starve too?

How do you draw the line between someone who wont work and someone who cant get paid work?

 

[StonehamPark]

How can you prove that someone "wont work". Do you regard sending people out to "work" on schemes where they do not get paid for it is actual work? Can you make a good case in a court of law for suggesting someone "wont work" therefore society leaves them to starve? What about the dependants of that person...should they starve too?

How do you draw the line between someone who wont work and someone who cant get paid work?

1: They are not being 'sent' out to work, they are given 3 wide options and they can choose to work if they so wish.

2: If the claimant has been on JSA for 12 months or more, it is believed they are not doing enough to find any type of work, therefore, they need a good kick up the backside in order to go out and find a job.

We live in England, the nanny society. Of course no one will starve!! They will still get child/housing benefits etc.

This is the first wave of attack on the lazy who don't feel they need to work as the benefits cover their bills/booze.

Of course very, very few people who have genuinely tried to find work for 12 months will get caught in the net, however, the training/voluntary work options will help their CV and ultimately help them find a 'real' job.

 

[gazingdown]

Well, proving it's a case of "won't" work rather than "can't" will always be a tricky one. I'm not saying it's something simple/easy to do but we shouldn't just ignore/sweep it under the carpet just because it's hard to do.

In reality, there probably wouldn't be many starving as those that won't work will soon get a job, especially if their dependants lives depended on it! People can be very resourceful when they have to be. If someone who can work has reasonably tried to get work but can't then yes, of course we should help.

As for "sending people out to "work" on schemes where they do not get paid for it is actual work?" - They ARE getting paid, in the form of their benefits. By all means, ensure that the benefits/hours work ratio is at/above minimum wage (chances are it will be WAY above minimum wage unless they end up doing a lot of hours).

 

[CheeseRolls]

I have come across a fair few people recently, who maintain a good standard of living locally, by taking on multiple jobs. By this I mean they do a combination of any of the following;

Childcare, dog walking, fitness instructor, painting and decorating, gardening and clearance work, hosting foreign students etc etc.

It is absolutely fantastic what some people are able to achieve with such a flexible and can do approach and I am full of admiration for anyone who can make this work for them. This model works really well in the South, where you have a lot of cash rich time poor people, who are prepared to pay for these services. Often this is because people have moved with jobs and extended families can be spread far and wide. In many parts of the country, they would think you completely barmy, if you paid someone to walk your dog. Childcare can be spread around the family and these opportunities may not exist.

I think this illustrates two things here.

One of the key differences between the hard working South and the lazy North.
The blurred lines between paid and unpaid work. Compare walking a neighbours dog, or looking after a niece while your sister works, to the equivalent paid jobs.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I have come across a fair few people recently, who maintain a good standard of living locally, by taking on multiple jobs. By this I mean they do a combination of any of the following;

Childcare, dog walking, fitness instructor, painting and decorating, gardening and clearance work, hosting foreign students etc etc.

It is absolutely fantastic what some people are able to achieve with such a flexible and can do approach and I am full of admiration for anyone who can make this work for them. This model works really well in the South, where you have a lot of cash rich time poor people, who are prepared to pay for these services. Often this is because people have moved with jobs and extended families can be spread far and wide. In many parts of the country, they would think you completely barmy, if you paid someone to walk your dog. Childcare can be spread around the family and these opportunities may not exist.

I think this illustrates two things here.

One of the key differences between the hard working South and the lazy North.
The blurred lines between paid and unpaid work. Compare walking a neighbours dog, or looking after a niece while your sister works, to the equivalent paid jobs.

You can actually earn more money in some cases, than you would working for a company full time. My relations daughter now has 3 different part time jobs. The hours are all over the place, however she is bringing in the money. Got to hand it her, the jobs are far from glamorous, but at last she is learning how to work. She was unemployed 3 months ago. Job is a job these days. Doesn't matter what you do, we all need money.

 

[kevo]

50 pages.

I get the feeling this is something that anyone who has never been unemployed will back, but anyone who has been there and know what it's like will oppose.

I've read different reports - some saying it will be introduced after 6 months, others saying 9 months. There may, perhaps, be some slight justification for introducing this for the long-time unemployed who have never had or held down a job, or who refuse to look for work, but after just 6 months is ridiculous. It can quite easily take that long to find something - and applying for jobs is often a full-time job in itself, so this scheme would actually make it more difficult.

The other thing I wonder about is how it will affect older people - the 50-somethings who are made redundant, who have maybe had the same job for most of their lives. It is incredibly difficult for people in that position to easily and quickly find something new. To make them walk the streets picking up litter is humiliating.

Overall, it's very typical of a policy introduced by a party stuffed full of public school boys from privileged backgrounds, who have had everything - including career openings - given to them on a plate, and who, of course, will never find themselves in such a vulnerable and demoralising position.

 

[Nibble]

I can't see much good coming of this. For a few reasons.

There are people that are incapabable of organising their lives, it's half the reason they are unemployed. Not lazy, not taking the piss, just cannot organise themselves to be anywhere or pay bills etc. It's a huge problem. The government knows this and will relish the fact that swathes of people will be chucked off benefit. You don't think they would be allowed to starve? They would be directed to a soup kitchen and possibly a food aid centre. That's it.

All the people that the conservatives chucked out of disability benefit will probably be incapable of conforming to these rules, again, swathes of people chucked off benefit.

In fact I can guarantee you the people that are capable and able to get work will suffer because they will be a source of free labour for shitty companies, 30 hrs a week and be unable to find decent work. If one chooses to sign in each day one is effectively being treated like a crimninal.

Another scam to manipulate figures and save the government money that people are entitled to by demonising all those on benefits. A VERY small percentage of those claiming benefits are cheating, most are people that have become unemployed due to the economy.

The benefit system is supposed to come into it's own at EXACTLY this sort of crisis, instead it's being used as a popularity tool for cruel politicians.

 

[Napper]

50 pages.

I get the feeling this is something that anyone who has never been unemployed will back, but anyone who has been there and know what it's like will oppose.

I've read different reports - some saying it will be introduced after 6 months, others saying 9 months. There may, perhaps, be some slight justification for introducing this for the long-time unemployed who have never had or held down a job, or who refuse to look for work, but after just 6 months is ridiculous. It can quite easily take that long to find something - and applying for jobs is often a full-time job in itself, so this scheme would actually make it more difficult.

The other thing I wonder about is how it will affect older people - the 50-somethings who are made redundant, who have maybe had the same job for most of their lives. It is incredibly difficult for people in that position to easily and quickly find something new. To make them walk the streets picking up litter is humiliating.

Overall, it's very typical of a policy introduced by a party stuffed full of public school boys from privileged backgrounds, who have had everything - including career openings - given to them on a plate, and who, of course, will never find themselves in such a vulnerable and demoralising position.

Spot on

Good policy if you have head in sand that all jsa claimants are drug smoking wasters that don't want to work but modern day Britain is far far far from that.
Frightening how the government are hammering the poor , sick ,disabled and unemployed .

Meanwhile they still won't go after the bankers and those with cash , instead taking legal action to stop a cap on bankers bonuses. Legal action funded by the public . It stinks

 

[Nibble]

The Conservative government are evil.

 

[father_and_son]

The can't/won't divide can be drawn quite easily based on their response to the 3 options...

Given that we are talking about LONGTERM unemployed, so those unfortunate enough to have lost their job through bad luck or someone else's bad management but have a proven track record of working and marketable skills are, in most cases, removed from this equation.


If they choose 1. Work in the community thus demonstrating an work ethic, timekeeping skills, etc and show a future employer that you can be trusted to turn up on time, leave on time and contribute in the period inbetween, then I'm happy to classify them as "couldn't get a job" but at least they're trying not to be a drain on society. They have my support and I'm not begrudging my taxes keeping them from starving.

If they choose 2. FT Training courses or PT and some of 1. above. Likewise, happy to assume that they are really making an effort to contribute and, maybe, having trained to do something which hasn't helped have got off their arses and are looking for an alternative. They are suitably deserving of my tax money to help them get a leg up.

If they choose 3. and just turn up at JobCentre 5 days a week. This is almost the text book definition of "won't work". Personally, I'm happy to assume that they are a parasitic waste of space and undeserving of any public money.


There is, in my opinion, a 4th category of people who, while they can make a positive contribution to society, some form of disability or illness prevents that contribution from generating a "living wage" and therefore are deserving from the rest of society of more than either of the 3. And lazy is not an illness that I would accept!

 

[father_and_son]

It's worth mentioning that the "community work" is literally the same as community service - treating the long-term unemployed as if they are criminals is just wrong, even if they are lazy.

Why?

I would consider anyone who intends never to work and never to contribute to be STEALING from the government (and therefore everyone who pays, has paid or will in the future pay tax). Social Security is a safety net not a life-style choice - it's there to protect the vulnerable, the unlucky and the less able, give them time and freedom to find their place in society where they can contribute but it shouldn't be just supporting those capable of supporting themselves indefinitely.


If you see someone cleaning graffiti from a public place and they are dressed in orange overalls then you, quite rightly IMO, think one thing - repaying a debt to society because they were a tw*t (not a "go directly to jail, do not pass go" type of tw*t, but a tw*t nonetheless). If you see the same picture but the person is dressed normally then the mental image is very different - this is someone working to improve the space we all live in, good on them, well done.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

This is another Tory policy that at first glance seems reasonable, but as soon as you start thinking about has enormous holes in it. First thing i'd like to know is what will be the cost of the additional resources daily attendance at a job centre and the community work.

I tend to agree, the theory is not unreasonable, you just know the execution will be unworkable. The same goes for Labours freeze on energy prices. Both generate good headlines, but impractical.

 

[Nibble]

Why?

I would consider anyone who intends never to work and never to contribute to be STEALING from the government (and therefore everyone who pays, has paid or will in the future pay tax). Social Security is a safety net not a life-style choice - it's there to protect the vulnerable, the unlucky and the less able, give them time and freedom to find their place in society where they can contribute but it shouldn't be just supporting those capable of supporting themselves indefinitely.


If you see someone cleaning graffiti from a public place and they are dressed in orange overalls then you, quite rightly IMO, think one thing - repaying a debt to society because they were a tw*t (not a "go directly to jail, do not pass go" type of tw*t, but a tw*t nonetheless). If you see the same picture but the person is dressed normally then the mental image is very different - this is someone working to improve the space we all live in, good on them, well done.

The sad fact is that if someone intends never to work, they will never work. They're probably unemployable by that point anyway. We have a welfare system. it will get abused by the minority. The vast majority of people on benefits will get back to work or have genuine resaons they cannot work. It is an absolute falsehood that the scrounging benefit cheat problem is anywhere near as bad as the Tory's make out.

 

[Billy the Fish]

If you see someone cleaning graffiti from a public place and they are dressed in orange overalls then you, quite rightly IMO, think one thing - repaying a debt to society because they were a tw*t (not a "go directly to jail, do not pass go" type of tw*t, but a tw*t nonetheless). If you see the same picture but the person is dressed normally then the mental image is very different - this is someone working to improve the space we all live in, good on them, well done.

It's this kind of collective judgemental attitude, and pretty much everyone on this thread has taken it, which scuppers these schemes in the first place. Too many people in this country look down on essential jobs like cleaning the streets or maintaining public places. If we all took the attitude that it's important work that improves all our lives rather than a punishment, mabye everyone wouldget off their high horse and stop bitching about having to do a "demeaning" job.

As for the scheme, I can't help but agree with others and think this paves the way for big companies to abuse and us it as slave labour. The only way to reduce unemployment in the long term is to create more SKILLED jobs in areas that need them and educate the workforce well enough to do them.

 

[brightonrock]

An old etonian who inherited millions attacking those who get "something for nothing". How predictably ironic.

What worries me is that small firms can't afford it and big firms will abuse it. They get Jobseekers doing cheap or unpaid labour, who in turn pay little to no tax or NI because they're still below the taxable threshold. Meanwhile said companies avoid tax with creative accounting and lo and behold the deficit is untouched. It's yet another soundbite policy from the Tories, playing to the indignant Daily Mail gallery and once again completely missing the point.

Am I pissed off I work god knows how many hours a week for awful pay and struggle to make ends meet, whilst Dave & Tracy Lazyarse pop out half a dozen kids and sit watching jeremy kyle all day doing sweet FA, probably for more money? Yes, of course I am. But on the bigger scale, benefit fraud (or abuse of the system) is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to corporate tax avoidance etc. But that'd be upsetting Dave and George's pals, wouldn't it, if they closed the loopholes that truly matter.

********s the lot of them.

 

[Nibble]

An old etonian who inherited millions attacking those who get "something for nothing". How predictably ironic.

What worries me is that small firms can't afford it and big firms will abuse it. They get Jobseekers doing cheap or unpaid labour, who in turn pay little to no tax or NI because they're still below the taxable threshold. Meanwhile said companies avoid tax with creative accounting and lo and behold the deficit is untouched. It's yet another soundbite policy from the Tories, playing to the indignant Daily Mail gallery and once again completely missing the point.

Am I pissed off I work god knows how many hours a week for awful pay and struggle to make ends meet, whilst Dave & Tracy Lazyarse pop out half a dozen kids and sit watching jeremy kyle all day doing sweet FA, probably for more money? Yes, of course I am. But on the bigger scale, benefit fraud (or abuse of the system) is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to corporate tax avoidance etc. But that'd be upsetting Dave and George's pals, wouldn't it, if they closed the loopholes that truly matter.

********s the lot of them.

Spot on

 

[Nibble]

It's this kind of collective judgemental attitude, and pretty much everyone on this thread has taken it, which scuppers these schemes in the first place. Too many people in this country look down on essential jobs like cleaning the streets or maintaining public places. If we all took the attitude that it's important work that improves all our lives rather than a punishment, mabye everyone wouldget off their high horse and stop bitching about having to do a "demeaning" job.

As for the scheme, I can't help but agree with others and think this paves the way for big companies to abuse and us it as slave labour. The only way to reduce unemployment in the long term is to create more SKILLED jobs in areas that need them and educate the workforce well enough to do them.

No-one is saying that work is demeaning at all, what they are saying is that it shouldn't be forced labour. Besides, it not the average man on the street that finds those jobs demeaning, it's the council's who come up with the appalling wages for them!

 

[father_and_son]

It's this kind of collective judgemental attitude, and pretty much everyone on this thread has taken it, which scuppers these schemes in the first place. Too many people in this country look down on essential jobs like cleaning the streets or maintaining public places. If we all took the attitude that it's important work that improves all our lives rather than a punishment, mabye everyone wouldget off their high horse and stop bitching about having to do a "demeaning" job.

As for the scheme, I can't help but agree with others and think this paves the way for big companies to abuse and us it as slave labour. The only way to reduce unemployment in the long term is to create more SKILLED jobs in areas that need them and educate the workforce well enough to do them.

On the contrary. My comment was exactly that I would be impressed by someone working to clean their community and make it a nicer place to be. This is exactly what I see as the sort of community spirit which needs to be rewarded.

The purpose of the scheme is not for big companies to treat the unemployed as slave labour though... the purpose is to show those people who are long term unemployed that they can't just doss around all day and expect society to pay their way for them. A proven track record of working (getting up on time, turning in every day, making an effort, etc) should be enough to open doors to an unskilled job. Retraining and qualifications should be opening doors to the skilled jobs. The only people being treated like "slaves" are those that will refuse to take the chances given to them.

Agree with the last comment: A combination of a ready and willing (and qualified) workforce and a business culture rewarding entrepreneurs and other risk takers is the only true way to reduce unemployment, but its a chicken and egg...why start or grow a business if you can't get the staff you need and can trust? - why get a qualification if there is no chance of working in that field?