Another piece of coalition common sense bites the dust

[midnight_rendezvous]

I like how everyone just assumes people on job seekers are layabouts who couldn't care less. I was on job seekers for 6 months, applied for over 300 jobs and had 2 interviews in that time. I have a degree, A levels and GCSE's galore, do I think in therefore entitled to have a job? No, but I certainly have enough qualifications and experience to do most aspects of retail or junior office work. But apparently I'm "over qualified to work in a shop but not qualified enough to do copying and typing". After going through all of this I think it's truly disgusting how people get tied with the same brush as those who can't be bothered just because they are on government benefit.

Anyway, doing full times hours (30+ is it?) a week for pittance is practically slave labour whichever way you look at it. It's easy to judge from your high horse but until you've experienced it yourself you should really think before you speak, or type as the case may be.

 

[Camicus]

On your first point, I'm not saying that can't have money, just earn it.

Second point, because it creates a downward spiral. If somebody has something to get up for in the morning, it will give them a sense of purpose. Anyway, you could turn that argument on it's head and say, well if it's only £70, why not make them earn it.

And on your final point, you have to be very careful with minimum wage because that could drive inflation, but more importantly, could drive firms to employ even less because they can't afford the staff.

All of which detracts from the point, which is - why shouldn't job-seekers be made to do some sort of work, voluntary or otherwise, to earn jobseekers allowance, housing benefit etc?? It may even be a cash-cow for the government, because if profit making firms like Iceland or Poundland want these people to do menial tasks, they have to pay the government for them....?

Errrrrm to claim JSA you have had to pay in to the system. People have already earnt there entitlement. Why should the tax payer subsidies big business at the end of the day she has convinced (And her co plaintiff a lorry driver expected to work at poundland 30 hours a week at £2 an hour) 3 judges that its wrong good on her

 

[CheeseRolls]

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?

First a couple of old time sayings

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink
One volunteer is worth two pressed men

By way of explanation for me any work placement scheme needs to have a genuine element of training, i.e. it will significantly enhance someone's chances of landing a proper job, or have an element of social benefit. e.g. charitable voluntary work.

Aside from the idol masses, there are a huge number of people working and claiming top up benefits and a significant proportion of these work for highly profitable organisations. This is a nice little state subsidy for companies that should really be paying their employees properly. With your solution it is quite possible that a number of hard working individuals could lose their jobs to be replaced by your forced labour force. The net result is that the state ends up paying even more.

If you take on an employee or even a charitable volunteer, over time they will require less and less supervision, because they have an interest in what they are doing. This is not the case where you press gang people into working. So you actually have to pay more for people to supervise the unpaid/unwilling.

So yes too simple for me.

 

[Seagull73]

I like how everyone just assumes people on job seekers are layabouts who couldn't care less. I was on job seekers for 6 months, applied for over 300 jobs and had 2 interviews in that time. I have a degree, A levels and GCSE's galore, do I think in therefore entitled to have a job? No, but I certainly have enough qualifications and experience to do most aspects of retail or junior office work. But apparently I'm "over qualified to work in a shop but not qualified enough to do copying and typing". After going through all of this I think it's truly disgusting how people get tied with the same brush as those who can't be bothered just because they are on government benefit.

Anyway, doing full times hours (30+ is it?) a week for pittance is practically slave labour whichever way you look at it. It's easy to judge from your high horse but until you've experienced it yourself you should really think before you speak, or type as the case may be.

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?

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

On your first point, I'm not saying that can't have money, just earn it.

Many people will have already earnt it through taxation. They earnt it when the deal was 'if you are unemployed you are entitled to benefit if you are actively looking for work.'

Seems to be a sleight of hand at play when the government adds new provisos that weren't part of the deal when the benefit claimant was making his contribution in the first place.

 

[Blackadder]

I have no problem with people working for benefits in a voluntary capacity for a good cause.

I do have a problem with large companies like Poundland getting free labour. they should pay for it like everyone else. They will throw people out of work to get free resource to boost their profits.

 

[The Large One]

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?

It is.

Aside from your solution sounding like something Lenin would be proud of (i.e. enforced full employment), it seeks to presume the benefit claimants do this for, well, a living.

Of course, there are parts of society who have hit the poverty trap, and see no benefit in working, but to sweep away all benefits in order to clean up the lower end of society is like chucking out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Seagull73]

First a couple of old time sayings

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink
One volunteer is worth two pressed men

By way of explanation for me any work placement scheme needs to have a genuine element of training, i.e. it will significantly enhance someone's chances of landing a proper job, or have an element of social benefit. e.g. charitable voluntary work.

Aside from the idol masses, there are a huge number of people working and claiming top up benefits and a significant proportion of these work for highly profitable organisations. This is a nice little state subsidy for companies that should really be paying their employees properly. With your solution it is quite possible that a number of hard working individuals could lose their jobs to be replaced by your forced labour force. The net result is that the state ends up paying even more.

If you take on an employee or even a charitable volunteer, over time they will require less and less supervision, because they have an interest in what they are doing. This is not the case where you press gang people into working. So you actually have to pay more for people to supervise the unpaid/unwilling.

So yes too simple for me.

Yes I know about the employability aspect, I work on this sector at the moment.

Possible yes, certain no, and don't we have a welfare bill that we have to do something about? And a culture that needs addressing? What's the answer, sit and do nothing and still continue to pay *some* people for doing bugger all and contributing nothing to society?

It's a broad-brush approach, and not always popular in times of high unemployment, but not something that can be swept under the carpet...

- - - Updated - - -

Errrrrm to claim JSA you have had to pay in to the system.

That's completely wrong for starters....

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

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?

Re the full time hours. I luckily now find myself in a position where I manage in a charity shop. Not glamourous but it pays the bills and I have people sent from the job centre to do 32 hours a week voluntary work. Admittedly working for charity is different to working for a huge company but you get the jist. People work full time hours and if you translate that into "earning your job seekers" they are roughly earning £1.50 an hour. Hardly seems right when you consider they are more or less doing the same job as someone else who is £.6.19 an hour.

And as someone else has said surely if you've paid taxes you've already paid into the system to help fund you in your time of need?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

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.

Your right. This is what is so frustrating about this country at the moment. If these things could be stopped this country would be a much better place. Normal people feel cheated by the system.

 

[CheeseRolls]

On your first point, I'm not saying that can't have money, just earn it.


All of which detracts from the point, which is - why shouldn't job-seekers be made to do some sort of work, voluntary or otherwise, to earn jobseekers allowance, housing benefit etc?? It may even be a cash-cow for the government, because if profit making firms like Iceland or Poundland want these people to do menial tasks, they have to pay the government for them....?

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.

 

[User removed 4]

There needs to be root and branch reform of the benefits system, instead of companies like poundland taking the piss and just getting cheap labour , how about compulsory training for unemployed people , to enable them to present a better prospect for any would be employer.
I have no specific skills other than my experience working in the city, I spent some time unemployed a few years ago, , luckily I was able to get back on my feet again , but if I hadnt , I'm sure some training in another skill would have been a huge benefit, I've seen on another thread that the poster [MENTION=12901]CheeseRolls[/MENTION] is due to lose his job, he genuinely has my sympathy, but instead of him languishing on benefits( I'm quite sure he will be looking for a job)how about training him in something like prince2 , or something else that is in demand, instead of patting ourselves on the back that we have managed to get a skillled graduate from India to do the job.

 

[somerset]

Surely, if someone's been paying their taxes, they have already earned the money they are now getting back from the state?

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.

 

[Seagull73]

Re the full time hours. I luckily now find myself in a position where I manage in a charity shop. Not glamourous but it pays the bills and I have people sent from the job centre to do 32 hours a week voluntary work. Admittedly working for charity is different to working for a huge company but you get the jist. People work full time hours and if you translate that into "earning your job seekers" they are roughly earning £1.50 an hour. Hardly seems right when you consider they are more or less doing the same job as someone else who is £.6.19 an hour.

And as someone else has said surely if you've paid taxes you've already paid into the system to help fund you in your time of need?

All of my talk is hypothetical and never going to happen unless this country falls under the leadership of Stalin II.

The point I am making isn't aimed at people like you - we hear day after day about the welfare bill and how much public money is being spent on keeping people, some of which are not prepared to give anything back because they are 'better off on benefits'. That's the bit that I am getting at, and gets my riled every time I see it.

 

[The Large One]

Yes I know about the employability aspect, I work on this sector at the moment.

Possible yes, certain no, and don't we have a welfare bill that we have to do something about? And a culture that needs addressing? What's the answer, sit and do nothing and still continue to pay *some* people for doing bugger all and contributing nothing to society?

It's a broad-brush approach, and not always popular in times of high unemployment, but not something that can be swept under the carpet...

We have an enormous welfare bill (0.8% of which is claimed fraudulently) in this country.

Doing 'something' isn't necessarily better than doing 'nothing' if the effect is to the detriment of society and the economy. The example cited above is one case in point.

 

[tweenster]

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.

bluenitsuj for Prime Minister, heading up the new SC Party!

 

[Seagull73]

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.

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.

 

[Seagull73]

We have an enormous welfare bill (0.8% of which is claimed fraudulently) in this country.

Doing 'something' isn't necessarily better than doing 'nothing' if the effect is to the detriment of society and the economy. The example cited above is one case in point.

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?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

All of my talk is hypothetical and never going to happen unless this country falls under the leadership of Stalin II.

The point I am making isn't aimed at people like you - we hear day after day about the welfare bill and how much public money is being spent on keeping people, some of which are not prepared to give anything back because they are 'better off on benefits'. That's the bit that I am getting at, and gets my riled every time I see it.

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...

 

[Seagull73]

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...

Oh I agree about the risks and sending individuals perhaps closer to the poverty trap. But I am not saying people can't have the benefits, I'm saying make them contribute something - even if it is charitable work - to receive them (maybe earnis the wrong word here)....