Another piece of coalition common sense bites the dust

[spring hall convert]

Ha, that's priceless, do you think you contribution just sits there with your name on it for when or if you make a call on it?....Your tax my friend, goes further than just benefits, it pays, along with all the other taxes, for your healthcare, education, police, military, government, local government, roads, waterways, .,....etc etc.... you don't have a divine right to benefits, a form if workfare is in my view a great idea.... but the left don't like it.

This ISN'T a left vs. right argument. It is poor/undeserving poor arguement where the solution appears to be donating free labour to some of the biggest companies in this country. When are people going to realise that the real losers here will be all poor/middle income people, regardless of their working status. It's very easy to stir ill feeling amongst certain sections towards the "feckless."

But this policy is ridiculously flawed. If Tesco's/Poundland et al continue to recieve subsidised/free Labour, what incentive have they got to rise the wages/ keep on the worker who has served them loyally for 20 years? So with one hand you create downward pressure on the already derisory minimum wage, whilst tucking the savings nicely into the pockets of the shareholders. Don't you think this country has been damaged enough in recent times by the immense greed of those at the top?

Also, this is so open to abuse from those in power it's untrue, who is deciding which large organisations get the contracts for this "workfare?"

And what about the small business owner who might not be in a position where he/she has such high staff turnover that they are able to benefit as greatly from such an arrangement. Do you even know who owns Poundland? I don't, yet they are in effective being handed my tax money in the form of free labour.

I am not 100% opposed to asking some form of work of those that wish to claim JSA, even if it isn't quite to my taste but shouldn't we all benefit from it?

 

[CheeseRolls]

How about having more than one job creation scheme, as there are many many around right now, I happen to work on one.

And why not try debating seriously instead of taking the piss.

Shit sorry my mistake, I kind of assumed this was a football messaging board, where I could occasionally let off a bit of steam.

It is a genuine point though, simple solutions often don't work very well in a complex world.

 

[The Large One]

No it isn't, and I wasn't talking about Fraud, I was talking about those that are genuienly better off living on benefits. How, on any planet, can that be right?

And I'm sorry, there isn't an example in what I was talking about, so what is it that is so wrong?

I appreciate you weren't talking specifically about fraud; I believe you're more talking about the Jeremy Kyle-fodder.

My point is that the above example of the girl working at Poundland was that taking her away from something relatively constructive (working for a charity) to being told to do something else (wiping piss off a pikey shop floor) doesn't benefit anyone - except Poundland.

 

[Seagull73]

I appreciate you weren't talking specifically about fraud; I believe you're more talking about the Jeremy Kyle-fodder.

My point is that the above example of the girl working at Poundland was that taking her away from something relatively constructive (working for a charity) to being told to do something else (wiping piss off a pikey shop floor) doesn't benefit anyone - except Poundland.

Yes and if you have read subsequent posts, I've clearly stated that I completely agree that Corporations should not benefit from this process IN ANY WAY - maybe other than having somebody in where it could lead to permanent employment. i.e. a job creation 'type' scheme.

I agree, this example is ludicrous, because she was already doing charity work.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

These young people should be placed in jobs they want to do. At least they will learn something. It's a two way street. They get their unemployed benefit but at least learn something and the company gets a free worker.

 

[Seasidesage]

Where has anybody said they would have to do full-time hours?

And no I have never been unfortunate enough to be in the position you were in. However, if you are not a layabout as you say, surely you don't mind doing a little work to earn the money the government is giving you?

I've been paying into NI (Clue is in the name National INSURANCE) for around 30 years, last month I paid nearly £2500 in NI alone, I think if I become unemployed that entitles me to get a poxy £70 a week from a government that can spend billions on illegal wars and propping up corrupt banks. Stop reading the Sun mate, it is turning your brain into mush...

Anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed is entitled to some time to find themselves a job and if they after a reasonable time cannot find work and need to do voluntary work, then let them do something worthwhile in the community, rather than boost profits to an already profitable company.

 

[beorhthelm]

I appreciate you weren't talking specifically about fraud; I believe you're more talking about the Jeremy Kyle-fodder.

My point is that the above example of the girl working at Poundland was that taking her away from something relatively constructive (working for a charity) to being told to do something else (wiping piss off a pikey shop floor) doesn't benefit anyone - except Poundland.

at no point does it say in the Guardian peice that she was prevented from working for a charity. it certainly should be an option, i dont know whether it is or not (i recall the debate). but lets dissuade everyone of this idea its a benefit for Poundland. they dont need that person, they are creating non-existant jobs only because government is paying. for many (graduates aside) getting some work experience is crucial to breaking the cycle of unemployment, especially among the young. too bad the delivery is not meeting the ideal aims, as always.

right, so once we've established this is all a bad idea, has anyone got any other suggestions to help youth unemployed, long term unemployed get back to work and obstruct the shirkers having an easy ride?

 

[JCL666]

The scheme these people are on is not about working for their benefits.

CAP and "sector based work academies" are meant to give people skills, and in the case of CAP it is clearly stated that "CAP work experience placements must deliver a contribution to the local community and must not displace what would otherwise be paid jobs." I don't see how cleaning furniture helps the local community.

I think most people would agree that schemes whereby people contribute to the community etc would be great, whereas acting as free labour undertaking roles that will not enhance your skillset for large profitable companies is taking the piss.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Why don't we just scrap unemployment benefit altogether, and say that if you want to be paid by the government, you have to do some form of work? Even if it is charity work for nothing, it stops those people that are hell-bent on claiming benefits for nothing. They also have to do this work to get the other benefits like housing etc.....

Or is that just too simplistic?

Spot on mate.


It is too simplistic.

 

[Seagull73]

I've been paying into NI (Clue is in the name National INSURANCE) for around 30 years, last month I paid nearly £2500 in NI alone, I think if I become unemployed that entitles me to get a poxy £70 a week from a government that can spend billions on illegal wars and propping up corrupt banks. Stop reading the Sun mate, it is turning your brain into mush...

Anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed is entitled to some time to find themselves a job and if they after a reasonable time cannot find work and need to do voluntary work, then let them do something worthwhile in the community, rather than boost profits to an already profitable company.

Your NI contributions mean no more than anybody else who pays them you patronising fucktard, and are no more an insurance than the any other tax you pay. If you genuinenly believe that then you are the one living with your head in a newspaper. (I don't read any for the record)

And for the last f***ing time, I am not saying that Corporations should benefit from this process AT ALL

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I've been paying into NI (Clue is in the name National INSURANCE) for around 30 years, last month I paid nearly £2500 in NI alone, I think if I become unemployed that entitles me to get a poxy £70 a week from a government that can spend billions on illegal wars and propping up corrupt banks. Stop reading the Sun mate, it is turning your brain into mush...

Anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed is entitled to some time to find themselves a job and if they after a reasonable time cannot find work and need to do voluntary work, then let them do something worthwhile in the community, rather than boost profits to an already profitable company.

Agree with most of this.

- - - Updated - - -

Your NI contributions mean no more than anybody else who pays them you patronising fucktard, and are no more an insurance than the any other tax you pay. If you genuinenly believe that then you are the one living with your head in a newspaper. (I don't read for the record) And for the last f***ing time, I am not saying that Corporations should benefit from this process AT ALL

I can believe this.

 

[Seagull73]

Agree with most of this.

- - - Updated - - -



I can believe this.

Well done you - take a bow for how funny you are.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Im confused by the words 'another piece of coalition common sense' used in the title?

I wasnt aware that there had been any common sense in anyway involved with the coalition?

Im aware that there have been several ill conceived, ill thought out, rushed and badly managed 'ideas', that you would expect from a one term coalition, that knows that it is going to be a one term coalition, that have ended up biting the dust (for example(s)); the GCSE fiasco of just week, the removal of old laws from the statute books because they were no longer needed that got quitely dropped (top of the list of things to do for a government that came together for 'the national good' I would have thought and not at all a gimmick), the removal of unnecessary street signs (ditto but got dropped anyway when Pickles realised that you needed to spend money to do it), the pasty tax (think Pickles might have been involved in that one getting put into touch as well as it was going to be too expensive for him), etc etc.

 

[Meade's Ball]

The Tories in general are there to dip into and nudge toward hatred the elements of our personalities built to judge and condescend. I always find it heinous to sit and label those on welfare as definite scroungers. There are countless reasons as to why someone might be jobless and very few will be doing it because they love it so. hooray, £70 a week. What a life i'd then lead. I'd much prefer to carry on distrusting upwards and not show natural respect for someone just because they look well groomed and their suits are camel-haired, than stare sideways or downwards with a glare of disgust or judgement that they're just all cheats and layabouts and don't deserve such a tiny sum of money to survive.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Unfortunately very little common sense is used these days regarding the government. If common sense was used we would:
Have a eu referendum now.
Stop child benefit.
Stop benefit for those that have no intention of working.
Pay for all elderly care so homes do not have to be sold.
Free prescriptions.
Ban no win no fee firms so we are not constantly being threatened with being sued.
Stop aid to all countries and get our own back on track.
Stop paying benefits to foreigners who come over and have no money or job lined up.
Get out of Afghanistan.
Sort out the human rights crap that allows criminals the right to a family life etc

Rant over. These are my honest opinions and I accept there are arguments for and against. I am just pissed off that all the governments ever do is talk the talk but do nothing to change things when they supposedly have the power.

I think I agreed with one out of ten, but just to pick on a couple that haven't really been discussed.

Free prescriptions - Under the current system £150 million a year of prescription drugs are incinerated. These are the ones that are currently returned to pharmacists (implying that this only represents those who think they are doing the right thing) and does not include those who stick them in the bin or flush them down the toilet, or leave them in the back of the cupboard. More free prescriptions just means more waste

Pay for all elderly care - This seems to work in Sweden, but they have very high tax rates and a very strong culture of personal responsibility. Here many people choose to care for their own elderly relatives, whether through a sense of personal responsibility or lack of alternatives, why should people who have accumulated wealth not pay a proportion of the costs. Just to be clear here I am not saying the balance is right today, far from it. I just don't agree with your simple solution.

Finally assuming we have free care for all elderly who is going to care for them. If you scrap child benefit and the birth rate drops, we will have an unbalanced population. Plus with no one working and all us oldies claiming pension the country will quickly go bust. We either develop robots to take care of the elderly, (this is what they are trying to do in Japan) or we have to bring in a workforce from other countries.

 

[The Large One]

Yes and if you have read subsequent posts, I've clearly stated that I completely agree that Corporations should not benefit from this process IN ANY WAY - maybe other than having somebody in where it could lead to permanent employment. i.e. a job creation 'type' scheme.

I agree, this example is ludicrous, because she was already doing charity work.

The nub of this thread was originally about alleged 'forced labour'. The case the woman is bringing, and the defence by the DWP are separate from the central point you're making.

"To allow the claim to proceed … would lead to unprecedented disruption and prejudice to third parties. The imposition of a condition on the entitlement to benefit that a person undertakes certain work-related activity does not require a person to perform forced or compulsory labour. The only effect of such provisions is that a person needs to do the required acts in order to be paid a benefit. They are not forced to do those acts."

One - by 'third parties', does he mean the likes of Poundland? If so, tough shit.

Two, the woman may have fallen into a trap of believing the system is 'forced labour' - and hence illegal. You could argue that no-one is forcing anyone to do anything (well, the DWP is arguing that), though when the alternative is pretty unpalatable to that individual, and proving 'forced labour' might be tricky, surely 'bullying by coercion' wouldn't be far off the mark. Would that be enough for her to win the case?


In a statement the DWP said: "We will be contesting these cases vigorously. These schemes are not slave labour. They play an important part in giving jobseekers the skills and experience they need to find work. It is entirely reasonable to ask jobseekers to take real steps towards finding work if they are claiming benefits."

Surely demonstrably untrue? What skill and experience are achieved in wiping trodden in dogshit off the floor? Unless your ambition in life is to be a dogshit wiper, I suppose.


All of the above is separate, I suspect, from your ideal of getting people to train (whether by work placement or by education) for something appropriate should the right job or similar job ever come along.

 

[withdeanwombat]

So us taxpayers fork out so that a graduate can be trained in how to clean floors for a profitable retail organisation ?
Why don't Poundstretcher pay an unemployed person to do this manual job, rather than pretend it is a training opportunity, clearly it is not.

Who exactly is benefiting from this arrangement ?

Clearly.

It's cheaper for them,and improves their profit margin.

Guess.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Where has anybody said they would have to do full-time hours?

The girl in the story was doing 30 hours a week for seventy odd quid. That's as good as full time.

It's immoral that people are forced to work for a private company which makes millions each year for close to nothing. The idea might have some merit if people were forced to work for charities or the NHS. I'm all for people having to do something to get their JSA but it needs to be something worthwhile and not slave labour. It should also leave enough time to continue to look for work.

 

[cunning fergus]

This is one hell of a job creation scheme. So one civil servant to pay the JSA and now an additional one to claim the money back from Iceland/Poundland. Or maybe we could cut out the middleman and they could pay staff directly. A bit radical I know.

Far too radical, the state employs over 20,000 civil servants to administer the tax credit system...............why not sack them all and design a system that means people pay less in tax in the first place?

It might be bad for Newcastle and Preston, however the broader wins are substantial.................especially in preventing fraud which the tax credit system is particularly prone to.

Civil Servant Invented 1,400 Children In £1.2m Tax Credit Fraud - Tax Law - The Solicitor

 

[Seasidesage]

Your NI contributions mean no more than anybody else who pays them you patronising fucktard, and are no more an insurance than the any other tax you pay. If you genuinenly believe that then you are the one living with your head in a newspaper. (I don't read any for the record)

And for the last f***ing time, I am not saying that Corporations should benefit from this process AT ALL

No not now you ain't you prick