Something For Nothing!

[Hornblower]

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

Spot on and Spot on!
The number of people in the UK who genuinely could work but choose not to and claim the pitiful benefit instead is actually quite low and not really worth getting excited about. Still, why let the facts get in the way of good old Tory scare tactics:

" These scroungers are ruining our country and we must cut back on welfare costs!" - Not true.
"Unfettered imigration policies have ruined the country and all the jobs have been taken!" - Not true, in fact imigrants have been good for the economy.

The Tory's love these schemes as (as has been pointed out) they provide cheap labour for their mates in big business and undermine the role of trade unions - a double whammy!

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I have not been to a job centre in a long long time, so please correct me if I am wrong and may be accuse my ignorance. Isn't part of the problem with looking for work these days, the fact that job agencies now have all the jobs and the only way to find out if something is available to is go through them. Shouldn't the government should be working with companies to get these jobs advertised in the places we used to call Job Centres and ditch the middle man? People only have to make one trip to see what is available, and the Job Centres can phone the companies on behalf of the people to arrange interviews.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I just find the idea of lashing out and villifying those on benefits, even longterm, and treating those in employ as heroes who should stare on down at those without with a sense of superiority their security grants them as a horrendous message to all. By doing the bear minimum to remain in a role that it is difficult to be fired from doesn't make someone less fiendish than the so-called scroungers we're trained to resent. The endless whiff of the political strikes against those less likely to vote on behalf of the comfortable who will i find repulsive. And i always dread the "transforming" or "developing" oppositions who'll change themselves by 50% to seem more like those departing to grab power. Labour will mirror this hatred of "benefits abusers" to ensnare the easily sickenable middle England votes they lost.

 

[Leighgull]

It's a ****ing terrible idea.

There are some towns in the north where pretty much everyone is on the dole...where are they going to do this unpaid work? Down the treacle mines? Bloody hell, the NHS is being hacked to bits, the fuel utilities are robbing us blind, the Royal Mail is going to be the servant of hedge funds and profit hungry shareholders, the teachers and nurses are being screwed over and the millionaires are getting richer and fatter.

The answer is to force people on welfare to work for nothing for the corporates and fat cats. It's a scam and another effort to blame the poorest in society for the banks and the stockbrokers greed and mismanagement.

It'll be exploited like the YTS schemes and other attempts to stick the boot into poor people.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I think the government is right to try and tackle the sub-culture of able-bodied people intent on living off the state. Even if only 25% of people get something from the 'Community Workplan' experience then it will have been worth it.

 

[gazingdown]

The number of people in the UK who genuinely could work but choose not to and claim the pitiful benefit instead is actually quite low and not really worth getting excited about. Still, why let the facts get in the way of good old Tory scare tactics:

OK, so the numbers of people who are able to work but don't is "quite low".

The Tory's love these schemes as (as has been pointed out) they provide cheap labour for their mates in big business and undermine the role of trade unions - a double whammy!

Eh? I thought you said above that the numbers affected were quite low so it's not really supplying this "cheap labour" is it?

 

[drew]

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.

I love the way you imply through your comments that everyone unemployed long term is work shy and a benefit scrounger. Yes, there are some that fit your view and they are regularly identified in the Daily Mail. However, there are many that have lost jobs through no fault of their own and due to several factors, maybe age, geography, skill set etc, can't get a job.

If we want to deal with the scroungers then they should identify who they are and set them on separate programmes and that will no doubt involve agencies like social services and the job centres working together. But no, this government and it's blinkered supporters will tar everyone with the same brush.

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.

This.


As for the principle that those receiving benefit should do community work, I don't have too much of problem with this but 30 hours is a ridiculous amount. 15 hours would be top and that would be the equivalent of 3 hours a day leaving time for training or job hunting every day. Work placements are another matter as that system is abused by employers who use it for cheap unskilled labour at the expense of employing someone full time.

 

[Hornblower]

OK, so the numbers of people who are able to work but don't is "quite low".


Eh? I thought you said above that the numbers affected were quite low so it's not really supplying this "cheap labour" is it?

It seems you (intentionally?) chose to misinterpret what I said. I suggest you read my post again. Whilst the number of people who choose not to to work is quite low, the number of people who cannot find work but would be forced onto this scheme could be significant.

Is that subtlety lost on you?

 

[Bognor Bystander]

As a tax payer who is funding the habits of the benefits brigade I'm happy that the government are doing something to encourage these people to contribute to this countries taxes and help share the burden. It may not be perfect but it's better than doing nothing.

 

[gazingdown]

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.

As I read it from the BBC news site, the proposals if for those who have been unemployed for over 2 years will need to go on work placements to keep their benefits.

Many years ago, I was unemployed for a short while. The benefits then weren't great and experience of that meant that I would never want to be in that position again (and nor would I let myself) so I ended up sorting my life out, went to uni to get qualified and carved out a career. I could imagine, for many, if the experience was OK and the benefits good/comfortable then i could imagine it would make it easier to fall into the spiral/trap of not working.

At the end of the day, you make your own way in this world. A helping hand/safety net is all good but it should only ever be a temporary thing.

 

[gazingdown]

It seems you (intentionally?) chose to misinterpret what I said. I suggest you read my post again. Whilst the number of people who choose not to to work is quite low, the number of people who cannot find work but would be forced onto this scheme could be significant.

Is that subtlety lost on you?

How many of these unemployed over 2 years are there? What (some examples maybe) "big" companies are going to benefit from this?

Anyway, I would ask why those unemployed (for over 2 years) "cannot" find work when there are many that can and do.

I completely agree it should NOT be an excuse for cheap/free labour for private companies but there are plenty of charities out there, public stuff that would help, keeping your local area tidy, cut lawns, do odd jobs, help at old folks homes/schools etc.

Whether or not the government should be "forcing" people to do so is a debate to be had sure, but maybe they should start with having these schemes in place (voluntary) and see what the take up is.

I would suggest that once over 2 years unemployed you still get most of your benefits (say 70%) and do the above to "top-up" your benefits. Those that refuse or can't work can still be in the similar (well, slightly worse) position, those that want to better themselves can add some money to their pot. Let's help those who want to better themselves, as for those that don't......

 

[father_and_son]

I love the way you imply through your comments that everyone unemployed long term is work shy and a benefit scrounger. Yes, there are some that fit your view and they are regularly identified in the Daily Mail. However, there are many that have lost jobs through no fault of their own and due to several factors, maybe age, geography, skill set etc, can't get a job.

If we want to deal with the scroungers then they should identify who they are and set them on separate programmes and that will no doubt involve agencies like social services and the job centres working together. But no, this government and it's blinkered supporters will tar everyone with the same brush.

I'm not suggesting everyone long-term unemployed is workshy, but I am suggesting that everyone long-term unemployed who does nothing to better their situation is undeserving of unconditional support.

There are lots of different things that an individual could do to make themselves more employable which range from retraining to developing a proven track record of work through volunteering to lowering their expectations and swallowing a little pride. Making changes and trying will not necessarily always reap rewards, but refusal to do anything should no longer be an option.


And in response to any anticipated accusations.... Yes I have signed on in the past. Yes I did do everything I could to support myself as quickly as possible. And no, I do not read the cr*p written in the Daily Mail.

 

[kevtherev]

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

I'm sure people who can't work for whatever reasons, ie disability or doctors certificate will not have to do it. As for the bloody bone idol, who just can't be bothered, yes I suggest they starve....Why should anyone get something for doing nothing, it's disgusting.

 

[Seagrrl]

Unfortunatley Doctors don't assess people's ability to work, Atos, a French IT company, do. And they're frequently been getting it wrong (over 100,00 cases turned over on appeal in 3 years)

 

[kevtherev]

Job seekers allowance is around £70 a week, they might not be starving but life must be a massive struggle with absolutely no disposable income like that.

If someone doesn't want to work - what's the alternative? It's impossible to live off the grid in this country.

£70 a week is more than enough to live on, bearing in mind they get there rent paid and pay about a fiver council tax. Granted you can't go out on the lash and smoke 20 tabs a day, but if you want luxuries like that then I'm afraid you have to get off your arse and go and earn some cash.....If someone doesn't want to work, I don't know what the answer is, nor care very much but i'm buggered if they should get hard working tax payers cash, for doing feck all.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Would like to know whether any costs incurred by the jobseeker in having to travel to these placement will met by the people they are providing cheap labour for.

All for encouraging people in long-term unemployment to volunteer with charities etc if they want to get experience, improve self-esteem and perhaps benefit from on the job training etc. Should not be forced though. Should not be a conditional of their benefits. That is implying a fault on the part of the jobseeker and further stigmatising benefit claimants while potentially rewarding businesses by providing cheap labour and, ultimately, providing no incentive to create new, full-time, at least minimum wage roles.

 

[The Birdman]

It might also help stop those that claim the dole and then work for cash in the hand taking work from those that do it correctly and pay taxes to pay the dole in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

As a tax payer who is funding the habits of the benefits brigade I'm happy that the government are doing something to encourage these people to contribute to this countries taxes and help share the burden. It may not be perfect but it's better than doing nothing.

Couldn't have put it better myself. At least they are doing something. People can moan and groan about the large companies not paying their fair share, but they employ people and those people pay taxes so what can you really do. They have the government by the balls, because they could easily turn around and say we will move our business somewhere else. What is more damaging?

 

[El Presidente]

Why should people get money for nothing.....They don't have to do if, they just lose their benefits if they don't. Seems fair enough to me, in fact it's a fantastic policy.

Children get something for nothing in the form of an educashun, are you opposed to that too?

 

[Ernest]

Next to come are the disabled, remember what they said in the 1930's, first they came for the unemployed, then the disabled, who is next ?

IDS latest attack