Another piece of coalition common sense bites the dust

[spring hall convert]

Qualifying Criteria for Job Seekers' Allowance Contribution Based

Job Seekers' Allowance contribution-based is a non-income assessed benefit. In order to qualify you must satisfy all the Basic Rules of Entitlement AND you must have paid (or been credited with) sufficient national insurance contributions in one of the two complete tax years before the start of the calendar year in which you claim. Self-employed contributions do not qualify for contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance. See further information on National Insurance and Benefits.


From Yougov website not really bothered one way or the other but it would be nice to start from a point of fact rather than myth

In the interests of balance, as I understand, there are 2 types of JSA, contribution & income based. It is income based JSA that is in question here & deducted from everones NI payments for those that have no other means of supporting themselves.

For example, I was recently unemployed and I was lucky enough that I recieved contribution based JSA. Had I not paid enough NI, then I would not have been entitled to income based JSA as my partner earns above a certain threshold, same goes for housing benefit. It's this pot the "scroungers" would fall into.

- - - Updated - - -

Qualifying Criteria for Job Seekers' Allowance Contribution Based

Job Seekers' Allowance contribution-based is a non-income assessed benefit. In order to qualify you must satisfy all the Basic Rules of Entitlement AND you must have paid (or been credited with) sufficient national insurance contributions in one of the two complete tax years before the start of the calendar year in which you claim. Self-employed contributions do not qualify for contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance. See further information on National Insurance and Benefits.


From Yougov website not really bothered one way or the other but it would be nice to start from a point of fact rather than myth

In the interests of balance, as I understand, there are 2 types of JSA, contribution & income based. It is income based JSA that is in question here & deducted from everones NI payments for those that have no other means of supporting themselves.

For example, I was recently unemployed and I was lucky enough that I recieved contribution based JSA. Had I not paid enough NI, then I would not have been entitled to income based JSA as my partner earns above a certain threshold, same goes for housing benefit. It's this pot the "scroungers" would fall into.

 

[bluenitsuj]

A bit of a mixed bag then. Stop child benefit, rather than just means test it but you want free prescriptions for all. Same with Care homes. I agree that you shouldn't have to sell your home but there should be some means testing rather than a universal benefit. Out of interest, how many times have you personally been sued by a no win no fee firm? I thought we are getting out of Afghanistan?



This. If any of the posters bothered to read up on the case rather than just reacting to 'soundbites' they would have known that she was doing voluntary work and therefore gaining experience in her chosen sector but was forced to give this up to work for Poundland. Whether that is the policy at fault of just some local jobsworth not seeing the wood for the trees, I don't know.

1. I never said I had been sued but the threat is there in everyday life now, especially as a manager. I know of a case where a person has put a grievance in against someone at work and threatening to sue them for compensation. It's all bollocks. If they have a grievance then the accused should be dealt with in the correct way. Why do they need to get money out if it as well.
2. We are still in Afghanistan.

 

[Camicus]

In the interests of balance, as I understand, there are 2 types of JSA, contribution & income based. It is income based JSA that is in question here & deducted from everones NI payments for those that have no other means of supporting themselves.

For example, I was recently unemployed and I was lucky enough that I recieved contribution based JSA. Had I not paid enough NI, then I would not have been entitled to income based JSA as my partner earns above a certain threshold, same goes for housing benefit. It's this pot the "scroungers" would fall into.


In the interests of balance, as I understand, there are 2 types of JSA, contribution & income based. It is income based JSA that is in question here & deducted from everones NI payments for those that have no other means of supporting themselves..

So if your one of the people on income based your a scrounger but contribution based your not? so thats any 16-18year old anyone whos done a apprentiship anyone whos been to college or uni stay at home mothers or anyone who has been on contribution based jsa.

I have no problem with people working for there jsa but it should be voluntery and not cooerced and it should be paid at minimum wage or above Im sick of business leeching of the public purse

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So if your one of the people on income based your a scrounger but contribution based your not? so thats any 16-18year old anyone whos done a apprentiship anyone whos been to college or uni stay at home mothers or anyone who has been on contribution based jsa.

I have no problem with people working for there jsa but it should be voluntery and not cooerced and it should be paid at minimum wage or above Im sick of business leeching of the public purse

This. I just wish more people would stand up for it. It's a piss take. Decent jobs with decent wages is the way to get people back into work. If we have a country with a wide range of decent paid jobs then you will get people into work. I have said before that if I was young I'd rather take benefits than take some underpaid job. I can totally understand why people do not want to get out of bed for less than a living wage.

 

[spring hall convert]

So if your one of the people on income based your a scrounger but contribution based your not? so thats any 16-18year old anyone whos done a apprentiship anyone whos been to college or uni stay at home mothers or anyone who has been on contribution based jsa.

I have no problem with people working for there jsa but it should be voluntery and not cooerced and it should be paid at minimum wage or above Im sick of business leeching of the public purse

Mate, look back at what I've posted in this thread. I have been vociferously against this all along. Also, scrounger is inverted commas indicating that it is a quotation rather than a belief. I just wanted to correct something that wasn't right.

 

[blue'n'white]

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.

100% right - I'd vote for you !!

 

[bluenitsuj]

100% right - I'd vote for you !!

I think that's three votes now. How many more do I need?

 

[Camicus]

Mate, look back at what I've posted in this thread. I have been vociferously against this all along. Also, scrounger is inverted commas indicating that it is a quotation rather than a belief. I just wanted to correct something that wasn't right.

Pausing breifly to change feet in mouth. My apologies

 

[spring hall convert]

Pausing breifly to change feet in mouth. My apologies

That's quite alright. We're on the same side here brother!

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Hold on a sec, if you guys think people should be forced to work for their JSA, that's your perogative. Personally I find it distasteful but each to their own.

But what you conveniently ignore is that Poundland made a pre tax profit in excess of £30m in the last finanicial year so why do they need people to work for them for free? Wouldn't it be better for it to either be a) charity/ community based (big society, remember that??) or b) to give them experience in a field that they actually wished to get into?

Also, why would Poundland even consider paying anything more than the derisory wages they currently offer when they know there is a sackful of "free" labour round the corner. That's really great for the working man isn't it....

When are we going to lean that this deserving/undeserving poor arguement does no working class person any favours. The only people really benefiting from this are Poundland shareholders.

So there is some common sense somewhere on this thread, then.

As already mentioned above, as well, the girl graduate involved had been working on a voluntary basis, keeping her hand inn towards the type of job that she really wants. A common sense approach from JC+ would have encouraged her in that.

 

[Nibble]

The unemployed should be made to work for their benefits - common sense right ?

PA report
University graduate Cait Reilly has won her Court of Appeal claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store breached laws banning slavery and forced labour

Detail on the story Unpaid work schemes breach human rights, claim lawyers | Society | The Guardian

This is what happens when you try to govern by soundbites.

The short answer is this. If there is work there to be done and they need someone to do it then it is insane that they expect someone to do it for free so they can make a profit. If the work is there pay the person. Simple.

 

[beorhthelm]

i read this evening that Cait Reilly has since found employment in a supermarket. so could we conclude that the work experience gained through the scheme aided her in finding employment?

 

[Dandyman]

Hold on a sec, if you guys think people should be forced to work for their JSA, that's your perogative. Personally I find it distasteful but each to their own.

But what you conveniently ignore is that Poundland made a pre tax profit in excess of £30m in the last finanicial year so why do they need people to work for them for free? Wouldn't it be better for it to either be a) charity/ community based (big society, remember that??) or b) to give them experience in a field that they actually wished to get into?

Also, why would Poundland even consider paying anything more than the derisory wages they currently offer when they know there is a sackful of "free" labour round the corner. That's really great for the working man isn't it....

When are we going to lean that this deserving/undeserving poor arguement does no working class person any favours. The only people really benefiting from this are Poundland shareholders.

This.

 

[looney]

Now that I do agree with. If people are better off on benefits than they are when working then the system is 100% broken. But what do we do? Lower the benefit rate and condemn others to a life of poverty or do we raise the minimum wage are risk money becoming practically worthless (worst case scenario). It's a tough call. I still think that the benefit system "drain" is a clever rouse by the government to distract us from all the shed loads of money THEY cost us. But that's just my opinion...

You need to change the labour market from one thats demand driven to one thats supply driven then all the problems will go away.


But.....

That means reducing the supply of labour or a massive increase in jobs, or both.

Change tax rules to prefer one worker per family and/or slam the door on immigrants. This could include a large immigration tax including returning ex-pats.

 

[GT49er]

Far too radical, the state employs over 20,000 civil servants to administer the tax credit system...............

Which is about ten thousand short of the number actually needed to administer it - that's why it's not working properly, ocerpaying and underpaying millions (pot luck which side you come out on). Not the civil servants' fault - it's just such a badly thought out scheme. Absolute shambles - all the King's Horses and all the King's men stuff!

 

[clapham_gull]

Interesting thing about the girl was she was working unpaid, albeit part time at museum but was forced to leave to clean floors unpaid.

The full time "work experience" at Pound Land was stopping her look for employment.

I think she might just have a point and is completely the wrong sort of person the government should be targeting.

The government has effectively stopped her looking for a job or gaining meaningful experience. A private company got it's floors cleaned for free.

Nice one. What a bunch of muppets and they may now may be forced to pay a load of benefit back.

Are they making this us as they go along.

 

[beorhthelm]

The government has effectively stopped her looking for a job or gaining meaningful experience.

she's now working in a supermarket. seems meaningful in the end.

 

[GT49er]

I've nothing against people claiming JSA having to do something to qualify for their money (other than turning up at the Jobcentre and telling porkies about what they've been doing to find work) - many of them, of course, aren't telling porkies, and are genuinely seeking work, and would probably welcome the chance to feel they were contributing to society, especially if it was improving their job chances - and if the minority who see unemployment as a life style choice felt aggrieved that they were being coerced into doing it, I've got no problem with that!

But. all the scheme was doing in this case was providing free labour to a very profitable private company who should be giving people real jobs if they need the work done (Tories finding ways to help their rich friends, as usual) - so good luck to the lass that won her case. Any work that is 'forced' on Jobseekers should be for the common good - not for shareholders' profit.

 

[Camicus]

she's now working in a supermarket. seems meaningful in the end.

Thats using her degree in geology well then

 

[clapham_gull]

i read this evening that Cait Reilly has since found employment in a supermarket. so could we conclude that the work experience gained through the scheme aided her in finding employment?

Nope she was looking for a job anyway. All the governments scheme achieved was stopping her doing so.