Tories force those on benefits to earn them.

[pablo]

Good one! You should sleep better tonight after getting that off your chest! (Sarcasm intended)

 

Its not a "good one",just whats been said,by you and me,all there in black and white,its not personal(with me anyway)im just debating points with yer,but not "just" you,im just saying that the british public concentrate on their own and ignore the big picture,thats all,g'nite

[Kapri]

If I was unemployed for over a year, I wouldn't have a problem with working for my benefits with a few very important caveats.

 

1. Only a couple of days per week. I would want to be able to look for paid work the rest of the time.

 

2. It would need to be work that offered genuine experience and a reference. Not just slave labour for someone's business.

 

3. I would not want to be out of pocket in regards to transport costs etc. A bus pass may need to be supplied.

 

I think the government need to be very careful with this. If it takes away genuine jobs then they are going to create a big problem.

[Johndoe]

Work for the Dole, as it is called in Australia sounds superficially attractive and may have some positive aspects to it.

 

However "Newstart Allowance" as the dole is called here is meant to help people while they find paid employment. The employment agencies are alos supposed to assist the recipient get themselves ready to work.

Research has shown that Work for the Dole has shown no evidence of helping people transition to paid employment, and can be counter productive in that people doing it have no time to look for work.

It also can stigmatise people who are doing it, and the work can be pretty trivial. I've heard the people doing it can also be lumnped in with criminals who are doing "community service" as enforced by a court.

 

I wouldn't say I am against it provided it is limited to a couple of days per week, allowing the person time to also look for work and the work is helpful in developing career skills for the person doing it.

 

Exactly, and what provision will be made for the "available to work and actively seeking work" clause? If you're "working for the dole" how the hell can you be available for work and actively seeking work?

 

On the one occasion that I was on the Dole in the UK, I decided to commit to a sponsored walk. Due to the heavy publicity, the DSS found out that I'd been walking for 3 weeks and stopped my dole..........they also made me pay back the dole I'd received whilst walking....................not only that, but they decided that the sponsorship I'd received whilst walking (two pairs of Hi-Tech Boots, food, and some ciggies) was 'payment in kind' and also deducted that from future benefit..............the whole bloody system is a joke, if it's the same as it once was.

[Xenon4017]

Exactly, and what provision will be made for the "available to work and actively seeking work" clause? If you're "working for the dole" how the hell can you be available for work and actively seeking work?

 

 

 

I think this initiative is directed at the long-term unemployed. If you've been unemployed for a year or more, your search for work has been fruitless, regardless of your level of commitment during that period. You either say "OK, let's give it another year", or you change something in the hope of breaking the trend. Clearly this is meant to be both carrot and stick. But the stick is bigger than the carrot. I think the number of people who will gain meaningful and career enhancing experience will be minimal. The number of people who will be intimidated into attending a placement will be higher. And, of course, the real target group are those who have no intention of taking up a regular job. This scheme will give a reason to cut their benefits.

 

I have to admit that the people I feel most sorry for are the front line "Centrelink" staff who will have to listen to 3 thousand reasons why Duane and Sharon simply can't be expected to make the effort.

[flag of convenience]

Im not 100% sure of the motives behind it tbh,also i havent gone into it in great detail either,just whats been reported in the press.

To me,its playing to the gallery/for votes mainly,we see on here regularly how obsessed with "scroungers" a lot of us workers are,while ignoring the billions the tax payer pays out to subsidise massive companies like Tesco and Asda and the rest,in working tax credits etc to those companies low paid workers,no one seems arsed about this tho.

I read the new legislation brought in is for those on job seekers allowance? i also read that those it will affect account for 0.15% of the welfare benefits paid out,so a tiny amount really,if true.

 

I also foresee challenges in the courts to forcing someone to work 30/35 hours? a week for £71 dole is it,a single person?£2 an hour.

 

I wonder would osbourne be happy with one of these "feckless malingerers" cooking meals for his elderly mother?

I wouldnt be,i know that,and taking it to the extreme,"if" the "so called" 500 thou jobs are all taken up,how could they punish the other 2 million unemployed if theres no jobs?

Just more demonising the unemployed to deflect from failed work fare schemes and the top 5 % getting richer all the time,while preaching we're all in it together,we're not!but the masses are suckered in,the masses love wearing a hair shirt,"they" dont tho

 

If the measures involve a form of training suitable for the individuals needs I'm in agreement. If just another Tory scheme to bring down the dole figures (as under Thatcher) then bound to end in failure.

 

Yep, you shame equal sanctions are not raised against those really creating havoc on the system instead of for the most part its victims. The most affected by the growth of the few in the wealth stakes has greatly impacted on the poor.

Silly thing is the rich often work less harder than the poor as well. How easy it must be to feel stigmatised just through being poor and/or jobless. Most are or should be fully aware that work is hard to secure.

 

Yet the tabloids and their fat cat owners,mouth pieces of the establishment, continue to influence the working class with their divide and rule policy. The deserving poor and the undeserving. Those fearing that others may somehow get something up of them through the welfare system.

Meanwhile of course the state slowly rolls back the very system in place to help them in a future time of possible need.

[flag of convenience]

I think this initiative is directed at the long-term unemployed. If you've been unemployed for a year or more, your search for work has been fruitless, regardless of your level of commitment during that period. You either say "OK, let's give it another year", or you change something in the hope of breaking the trend. Clearly this is meant to be both carrot and stick. But the stick is bigger than the carrot. I think the number of people who will gain meaningful and career enhancing experience will be minimal. The number of people who will be intimidated into attending a placement will be higher. And, of course, the real target group are those who have no intention of taking up a regular job. This scheme will give a reason to cut their benefits.

 

I have to admit that the people I feel most sorry for are the front line "Centrelink" staff who will have to listen to 3 thousand reasons why Duane and Sharon simply can't be expected to make the effort.

 

Even sorrier that front line staff are in a position to implement the hard line, ideological policies of the government of the day, while getting the flak for it.

It has little to do with enhancing the employment positions of the unemployed, but very much the big stick approach which has failed in earlier attempts.

[flag of convenience]

If I was unemployed for over a year, I wouldn't have a problem with working for my benefits with a few very important caveats.

 

1. Only a couple of days per week. I would want to be able to look for paid work the rest of the time.

 

2. It would need to be work that offered genuine experience and a reference. Not just slave labour for someone's business.

 

3. I would not want to be out of pocket in regards to transport costs etc. A bus pass may need to be supplied.

 

I think the government need to be very careful with this. If it takes away genuine jobs then they are going to create a big problem.

 

You've named a number of the issues involved. Of course unscrupulous business owners would take advantage if given the chance and not strictly monitored. (as they have other schemes introduced in UK) From memory the Thatcher government offered a tenner on top of dole to pay transport costs and added expenses.

The only thing that may create jobs is proper training which is not cheap and as such an unlikely option.

[flybyknight]

the people on benefits should be allowed to stay on benefits, or should be given a job to do for their benefits.

the whole pull the rug out from under their feet is totally unfair.

successive governments have allowed these people to stay at home and let the world drift by for generations.

do you honestly think these people have any clue how to prepare a cv, good interview technique etc?

and quite separately, do you know any employers who would employ a 'working because i have to' jeremy kyle generation giropractor?

if the government wants them to work, they should give them jobs, after they sort jobs out for the mass unemployed (they have created) who want to work obviously!

[flag of convenience]

the people on benefits should be allowed to stay on benefits, or should be given a job to do for their benefits.

the whole pull the rug out from under their feet is totally unfair.

successive governments have allowed these people to stay at home and let the world drift by for generations.

do you honestly think these people have any clue how to prepare a cv, good interview technique etc?

and quite separately, do you know any employers who would employ a 'working because i have to' jeremy kyle generation giropractor?

if the government wants them to work, they should give them jobs, after they sort jobs out for the mass unemployed (they have created) who want to work obviously!

 

It's more a case of deck chairs. They know there isn't the jobs available but create a theatre around doing something for public consumption, never the less.

[Paul1Perth]

I am a social worker, but temporarily claiming benefits as not fit to work at present. Not sure why somebody working would be green eyed of somebody on 71.70£ a week? I hear you going on about Asda etc but the issue is getting people off benefits and back into employment trying to break the cycle of generations not working.

 

I think VS already posted on here about a few of his mates and his son who have no intention of working and somehow manage a couple of holidays abroad a year. For the life of me I don't know how, unless it's a single guy living at home and not going out for months on end. How would you possibly save up enough to go abroad with spending money to have a good time?

 

I could imagine, if this type of thing is true, the next door neighbour who is working a 50 hour week to make ends meet feeling a bit peeved. As pabs says there is a lot more taxpayers money going into topping up the low salaries and making sure the rich get richer and the poor stay where they are.

[Paul1Perth]

I am against this proposal for two reasons. Firstly I think it is unworkable. It would not be possible to force people to work for benefits for below the minimum wage so that would be say ten hours work for each individual. Quite an administrative burden even running this type of scheme. And where are all these jobs coming from? If they need doing why are they not being done already? And who is deciding whether something is a "proper" job versus something that can be done under this scheme?

 

The second objection of mine is that it sounds rather like a punishment for being unemployed. Being unemployed for a long time is soul destroying for many people and I can only see that this would add to a sense of worthlessness. Some people that are long term unemployed might have worked for twenty years before finding themselves tossed out as they age and then face age discrimination as they try to secure fresh work.

 

I am no bleeding heart liberal of course and think benefits are far too generous and should be set at a level to naturally discourage people for settling on a life on benefits. But this is not the answer.

 

There is definitely plenty of work that needs doing round Hyde where we've just visited. Looks like there are a few walls ready to fall down if something doesn't get done to them soon, the roads are in a pretty bad state.

 

It would cost a fair bit to set up and administer but you would be getting something for the money at the end of it, instead of it just going to waste. It would also create a few proper jobs too for the administrators and trades people they would need to run the program.

 

I've been unemployed for a while myself, didn't last long and I enrolled for a course run by the Manpower Services Commission just so I had somewhere to go something to do every day. Hated just doing nothing. I think that's the rut a lot of people are in and far from being a punishment a lot would see it as an opportunity to get out, meet people, learn a new skill. Might not lead to a proper job but it would get people out of the house and out of the rut.

 

I think they should ask for volunteers first, they might have a bigger response than they imagine. The ones that don't want to take part can't be forced and they would probably more trouble than their worth to try and force them.

[akiralx]

I am against this proposal for two reasons. Firstly I think it is unworkable. It would not be possible to force people to work for benefits for below the minimum wage so that would be say ten hours work for each individual. Quite an administrative burden even running this type of scheme. And where are all these jobs coming from? If they need doing why are they not being done already?

 

I would tend to agree that the bureaucracy will make this difficult to administer to a large degree. Your last point is why I wouldn't favour private sector companies like Tesco being involved - the work should all be of 'public service' types. If a council employs 50 people to pick up litter or a similar task, no-one would deny that would be done more quickly/better by 500 people - but the council has decided that the headcount of 50 is appropriate, probably on cost grounds. Adding some unemployed people to that workforce is not replacing the existing workers.

 

Also I don't actually feel that this type of work has to necessarily aid the person in finding a job, or give worthwhile experience (though it would be better if it does). It is just to benefit the community that is supporting them. The work would be for one or maybe two days a week, maximum. I did actually do something like this when unemployed about 20 years ago, working as a volunteer for a talking magazine for the blind. It was very worthwhile, and I believe did help me become employed soon after.

[MARYROSE02]

Are there any 'workers' Paradises' left where everybody has a fulfilling job (with a State-run industry), everybody has a comfortable (State-owned) home, and when they are sick, there is wonderful, free medical care for all provided by the State? Oh, and when you are too sick to work, or too old, there are wonderful State-run nursing homes to care for you?

 

My father was brought up during The Depression in a family of ten. In 1939, he enlisted and served until 1946. I don't think he ever had a day on the dole. He bought a house with my Mum and brought up three kids. Then he got sick, in retirement. Did a grateful British Government pay for his nursing home?

 

I managed to save up some money and acquire some assets when I was able to get long term work but now I can only get casual work. When I'm out of work, I don't qualify for any benefits, not until I use up all my assets. Just like my father, with his UK nursing care.

 

I walked past a public housing estate today. Some of the gardens are immaculate. Outside one, an old woman was sweeping the pavement. A couple of doors down, another garden looked like Onslow's in "Keeping Up Appearances." Perhaps the tenant is too sick or disabled and cannot look after their garden? But if they are able-bodied, why are they allowed to leave it looking like a tip?

 

I don't want an end to The Welfare State; I don't want Australia or Britain to be like the USA. I just want an end to bludgers and free-loaders and people who work on the sly,

[pablo]

Are there any 'workers' Paradises' left where everybody has a fulfilling job (with a State-run industry), everybody has a comfortable (State-owned) home, and when they are sick, there is wonderful, free medical care for all provided by the State? Oh, and when you are too sick to work, or too old, there are wonderful State-run nursing homes to care for you?

 

My father was brought up during The Depression in a family of ten. In 1939, he enlisted and served until 1946. I don't think he ever had a day on the dole. He bought a house with my Mum and brought up three kids. Then he got sick, in retirement. Did a grateful British Government pay for his nursing home?

 

I managed to save up some money and acquire some assets when I was able to get long term work but now I can only get casual work. When I'm out of work, I don't qualify for any benefits, not until I use up all my assets. Just like my father, with his UK nursing care.

 

I walked past a public housing estate today. Some of the gardens are immaculate. Outside one, an old woman was sweeping the pavement. A couple of doors down, another garden looked like Onslow's in "Keeping Up Appearances." Perhaps the tenant is too sick or disabled and cannot look after their garden? But if they are able-bodied, why are they allowed to leave it looking like a tip?

 

I don't want an end to The Welfare State; I don't want Australia or Britain to be like the USA. I just want an end to bludgers and free-loaders and people who work on the sly,

 

What happened to your father is whats wrong with the system Dave,whats happening with you is also wrong,its punishing people for being sensible with their money,for working hard too.

In fact its that kind of treatment that would encourage "some" people to say "why bother ,they'll end up taking my hard earned £/$ off me anyway",its something that needs addressing badly.

 

Can i just say this tho,i like all the rest of the working population have no respect for the bone idle and feckless,i just cant stand the way a hell of a lot of people fall for sensationalist front page headlines about "scroungers",living in massive paid for houses,going on multiple hols etc,it annoys me tbh,there "is" some who live that life,but the norm/reality is a single person living on their own gets £71 a week,and has no council tax to pay,its not a kings ransom is it,gas,food,leccy,water etc,its minimum existence,and most would say rightly so.

 

As far as i know,working on the side would be very difficult now,dont the unemployed have to attend dole offices and libraries every day now to actively seek work?

They have to show they've spent x amount of hours on the internet doing work searches,attend job clubs learning to construct cv's etc,i mean do people actually know all this?

 

Welfare to work was a failure,£130 million repaid in stopped benefits on a court ruling,i think this scheme will fail too,its not "training" picking up litter,its not right if they have to "work" 30 to 35 hours a week for £71,its simply punishment,if its "training" for a job,getting CSCS safety cards for the building trade,dumper licences,fork lift licences etc then thats different,but that isnt going to be the way of it from what i read,if it "is" that way tho,then fair enuf.

 

Anyway,i'll leave it there with this thread,and wait and see how it pans out,like i say tho,i think for the amount of money it will cost to administer/run,the extra staff taken on to pay,and the size of the targeted unemployed,IE those out of work for 2 or more yrs are a very small number,its just not worth it financially.

Im resigned to the fact we will always have x amount of malingerers sadly,i would just make them sign on every day around midday therefore making it difficult for them to work on the side,and this is what goes on anyway as far as i know.

 

The money for the scheme i would put to other use for the people who "do" want to work,IE spend it on above mentioned course,HGV courses and the like,the 15 20% of out and out bums i would just leave as they are,reporting to dole offices every day etc,because there "will" always be "some" who are not interested in contributing,basically im saying spend the money on those who want help.

 

Right,enuf from me on this,tara,im off with me car for a new alternator,more £,and a lost days work:rolleyes:

[MARYROSE02]

Here in Australia, there are people who say that we have a moral duty to admit, without question, every person who gets on a boat. It is racist to worry that they could be terrorists, criminals, diseased. Someone was going on about the detention centres being 'concentration camps.' (If only they were, then nobody would want to come!) But where do we house people, pay for medical care, train interpreters. There is a ten year waiting list for public housing in Sydney (where the bulk of people want to come.)

 

The reason my father had to pay over 600 pounds a week for his nursing home was that the British Government says it can't afford to pay for it? It's the same reason UK pensioners in Commonwealth countries have their pensions frozen. You expect the nasty Tories to do this, but Labour Governments are the same.

 

I don't want zero refugees and zero people on the dole, but neither do I want people coming here illegally, pretending to refugees, when they are really economic migrants, nor do I want people rorting the welfare system.

[pablo]

Here in Australia, there are people who say that we have a moral duty to admit, without question, every person who gets on a boat. It is racist to worry that they could be terrorists, criminals, diseased. Someone was going on about the detention centres being 'concentration camps.' (If only they were, then nobody would want to come!) But where do we house people, pay for medical care, train interpreters. There is a ten year waiting list for public housing in Sydney (where the bulk of people want to come.)

 

The reason my father had to pay over 600 pounds a week for his nursing home was that the British Government says it can't afford to pay for it? It's the same reason UK pensioners in Commonwealth countries have their pensions frozen. You expect the nasty Tories to do this, but Labour Governments are the same.

 

I don't want zero refugees and zero people on the dole, but neither do I want people coming here illegally, pretending to refugees, when they are really economic migrants, nor do I want people rorting the welfare system.

 

I wont get into the asylum seeker/refugee topic in aus Dave because i dont know the figures arriving,but i thought they were relatively small tbh,and maybe blown out of proportion by the likes of Murdoch,sorta similar to the sensationalist headlines here re benefits claimants,like i say tho,i dont look into it deeply,no point yet while im here.

Yes Labour are no better than the tories on certain policies regarding looking after our old/needy,but "in general" i think they care more for the majority,thats why i'll always vote for them,unless theres big changes in policies.

Ive watched a lot of stuff on the likes of the civil war in Sri Lanka,and the atrocities carried out,so i would find it difficult to be too judgemental about asylum seekers for fear of lumping the genuine in with the bogus tbh

[MARYROSE02]

Sometimes, it's not what the figures 'say', but how people feel. Doesn't the RHA and probably the AA/RAC too, say that Britain has only 2 per cent of the land given over to roads, so we should have more and more motorways.

 

Perhaps the numbers of 'boat people' are relatively small, but it seems as if a boat arrives every day. Christmas Island cannot cope, nor can the other detention centres. Personally, I like the 'boat people' to be considered part of our official refugee intake, and the numbers waiting for resettlement in the camps overseas will just have to wait longer for their turn.

 

It was an awful war in Sri Lanka, but if someone arrives from there with no ID papers, then how do we know they weren't a terrorist, or a criminal? I sometimes wonder if it was 1945/6/7 and hundreds of Germans were arriving here without papers, we should assume that they could not possibly be Nazis?

[pablo]

I know Dave,its an extremely difficult balancing act deciding who is genuine and who could be a danger,i wouldnt like the job is all i can say

[starlight7]

The problem we ran into was who actually supervises the workers. Some of the 'work for the dole' recipients were great but others were so unreliable they were a waste of space and we didn't have the time or the means to chase them up and supervise them. Certainly no money available for the amount of form filling and red tape we encountered.

[pablo]

The problem we ran into was who actually supervises the workers. Some of the 'work for the dole' recipients were great but others were so unreliable they were a waste of space and we didn't have the time or the means to chase them up and supervise them. Certainly no money available for the amount of form filling and red tape we encountered.

 

This is partly why im saying save the money on employing staff to supervise them,and send them on courses to ready made companies that train people up on courses like HGV,Fork lift truck,plant/machinery training etc,the only real admin would be accounts clerks to pay these companies

[Britpop]

I was in he job centre a couple of years ago, the bloke next to me was doing his claim interview thing, he didn't really speak English so the advisor had to keep repeating and speaking slowly and quite loudly so you couldn't help but hear their conversation. It transpired that he was looking for driving work only and hadn't had a job for 7 YEARS over which time he had been claiming.

I don't believe that an able bodied person, all be it with poor English, can't find a job, any job, for 7 years. In such cases, there should be taking part in community projects or such that are a requirement to being paid.

[Guest Guest 47403]

I can't see this scheme working it's good in theory but will likely cost more to implement than what the saving would be by getting a percentage of the long term unemployed back to work, I honestly believe if someone has been out of work for 2 years they really do not want to work and will do everything possible not to, as pablo said we will always have x amount of people who are long term unemployed (feckless wasters IMO) we just have to suck it up I'm afraid and pay there way.

 

The money would be far better spent firstly by aiding the short to mid term unemployed who are trying to get back in work with courses/education etc. And secondly by making the UK a more viable place for businesses to invest and thrive thereby creating more jobs.

[Steve99]

It sounds like a good idea at first but there are a couple of things you have to be careful of.

 

First, if the "free workers" in any way displace people who would normally be paid for the same task then this will make the problem worse, not better. If they're cutting grass in parks, what about the council gardeners who would normally be paid for the same job (and likely more than benefits provide). Similarly, all too often work experience with commercial companies doesn't provide proper training and experience--it simply lets the company use a low paid or unpaid worker where previously they would have had somebody on staff.

 

Second, care needs to be taken that people aren't forced into "make work" projects rather than being give training and incentives to get a real, productive job that pays better and contributes more to society.

They already have a scheme like this whereby some employers get virtualy free labour, one of the big recipients is Poundland who take on 'trainees' who then get their freedom at the end, the govt pays, the unemployed only gets the dole and ends up in many cases with a worse CV than they started with.

Once again they come out with this stuff when there are no jobs avaliable. Not only that the Job(less)centres dont even match people up with jobs anymore, just harrass people to ring up endless potential employers. Perhaps they should start with the bankers and accomplices who have ruined the world economy, job opportunities and future security, along of course with politicians of all flavours who have their future snouts in the trough too.

[Guest The Ropey HOFF]

I can't see this scheme working it's good in theory but will likely cost more to implement than what the saving would be by getting a percentage of the long term unemployed back to work, I honestly believe if someone has been out of work for 2 years they really do not want to work and will do everything possible not to, as pablo said we will always have x amount of people who are long term unemployed (feckless wasters IMO) we just have to suck it up I'm afraid and pay there way.

 

The money would be far better spent firstly by aiding the short to mid term unemployed who are trying to get back in work with courses/education etc. And secondly by making the UK a more viable place for businesses to invest and thrive thereby creating more jobs.

 

 

I think the Tories are going to make this work mate, they have no moral conscience, they have brought in the disgraceful dreaded bedroom tax and they have the callous ATOS fitting unfit people for work and this is just another way of attacking the weak and the vulnerable. I'm all for getting young and able dolites out of bed and earning their dole, but I think the Tories will be merciless in their drive to cut benefits and if there's collateral damage in the way of the disabled losing their benefits, then i don't think the Tories will bat an eyelid.

[starlight7]

Sadly, hoff, I think you're spot on!