Tories to announce full workfare next week.

(111 Posts)
Darkesteyes Thu 26-Sep-13 23:03:36

According to the Mail This just popped up in my Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/383342225926524928/photo/1

angry

ttosca Fri 27-Sep-13 01:09:02

I can't wait until this asylum of psychopaths are kicked out of government, never to return again.

And they won't be. They haven't won a majority since 1992 and they wont win one ever again.

There are now too few rich, white, reactionary, male, heterosexual conservatives.

May they rot in hell.

ttosca Fri 27-Sep-13 01:12:20

That piece of crap Ian Duncan Smith should be put in jail:

Atos to lose monopoly after 'flawed and unacceptable' disability benefit assessments

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atos-to-lose-monopoly-after-flawed-and-unacceptable-disability-benefit-assessments-8727115.html

territt Fri 27-Sep-13 09:31:37

whats wrong with making unemployed people work for hand-outs?

PedlarsSpanner Fri 27-Sep-13 09:35:30

Hahaha territt, that made me guffaw

territt Fri 27-Sep-13 10:15:15

Pedlar, you think people should get hand-outs without having to work for it?

KayHarker Fri 27-Sep-13 10:42:29

In a word, yes. Why should people work for less than minimum wage?

WoTmania Fri 27-Sep-13 10:43:03

territt - I think the point is that if there is that with workfare and 'working for benefits' it involves working for less than the minimum wage. Why not give them a properly paid job rather than expecting people to essentially work for free?

territt Fri 27-Sep-13 11:27:15

If people are long term unemployed then I really don't think its unfair to expect them to work for hangouts,

Have quoted this :
"It is expected that claimants who go through the Government’s main back-to-work scheme, the Work Programme, but fail to find a job, will be required to take part in unpaid community activities or work experience.

Those who refuse to do so face losing their welfare payments."

So they get help with the back to work scheme, but still don't get a job, they will be expected to take part in unpaid community activities or work experience. seems pretty fair to me, work experience will look good on a CV and help to find a job, and with if they cant get work experience then surely community activities are good, I mean why should the community continue to fund them if they don't want to put anything back into the community?

territt Fri 27-Sep-13 11:28:23

handouts not hangouts

niceguy2 Fri 27-Sep-13 11:45:23

The devil is in the detail.

I don't have a problem with the long term unemployed (say 1 year+) having to work experience if that's what stopping them getting a job.

What I don't want to see is newly unemployed ppl who are genuinely trying to be whipped off just meet government targets.

A friend of mine got stuck in a rut on JSA. He lost motivation and it was just easier for him to bimble along on benefits than get a job. It was only when the Job Centre forced him to come in literally every day and show his attempts at job hunting and being a general PITA that eventually he took a job. Until then there was always a reason why a job wasn't suitable.

In that context I give this a cautious welcome.

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 11:49:34

Being forced to come in to the Job Centre and show evidence of job-hunting is an entirely different kettle of fish from profit-making companies getting a workforce paid for by the taxpayer.

SoonToBeSix Fri 27-Sep-13 11:53:52

Territt you are very naive

niceguy2 Fri 27-Sep-13 11:54:37

My point is that it was until the pressure was really piled on that he got up and found a job.

Until then he was happy just sofa surfing.

Therefore I can see that the prospect of workfare will encourage those who are just lacking motivation to REALLY find work. And it could actually help those who are lacking experience.

But I do accept that this could be used wrongly and not help in certain circumstances. It all depends on how the rules are applied. And here the government do have a chequered history.

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 12:08:24

I'm not sure how you're making the leap from

some pressure would be a good thing

to

workfare is an appropriate form of pressure.

Particularly given JobCentres can and do apply pressure by simply stopping paying benefits (sanctioning).

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 12:13:51

The point is, workfare is harmful to the economy as a whole.

Instead of businesses employing people and paying them, the taxpayer is now paying them.

(Disclaimer: there can be specific cases eg apprenticeships where it's overall positive for the country for the taxpayer to contribute to a business's labour costs, but permanent unskilled labour isn't one of them.)

niceguy2 Fri 27-Sep-13 12:47:04

I guess it's about having more than one tool to do the job.

In my friends case he was meeting the job searching requirements (somehow) so in that context the job centre couldn't sanction him. Actually they did once when he missed his appointment but that wasn't enough 'encouragement' to get him to find work.

But once they introduced something so regular that it was a big enough pain in the bum, it made him realise that he may as well have a job. And that's what i'm trying (possibly badly) to say here.

There are those who simply don't want a job. I'm sure we all know or have known someone like that. For those workfare could be enough of an incentive to get them to actually genuinely find work.

As for workfare being harmful to the economy. It doesn't have to be. Just takes some proper planning. If you plan it poorly and let employers use it as a slave labour then yes it's going to be bad. But it doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 12:57:24

Can you describe a set-up where workfare isn't harmful to the economy? Because it's an age-old issue.

A friend in a local authority explained it to me when I was a teenager. Someone had suggested the council should be using the unemployed to pick rubbish from the streets. She asked the questioner what she should do with the existing council street cleaners - make them unemployed?

Any scheme where the fundamental idea is that the taxpayer pays below minimum wage for someone to do work has the same flaw. Obviously it's a vastly magnified flaw when the beneficiary of the work is a profit-making company, but the flaw's still there for non-profits.

NicholasTeakozy Fri 27-Sep-13 13:26:43

territt Fri 27-Sep-13 09:31:37

whats wrong with making unemployed people work for hand-outs?

They're not handouts. They've already been paid for via NI contributions. But the thieves behind these schemes don't tell you that.

NiceGuy, Workfare doesn't, erm, work. It just drives down wages and removes what little job security we have. What they're planning is permanent workfare. It's disgusting. I want to see capitalism for all, not just for the poor. What we have is not capitalism, it's financial terrorism. Our future is being stolen by these kleptocratic morons.

ttosca Fri 27-Sep-13 13:49:47

Do you make these little stories up as you go alone, niceguy?

ttosca Fri 27-Sep-13 13:52:53

Social security payments are not handouts. They are insurance payments paid through taxation.

If you don't agree with this principle, then you might as well forego the NHS and fire services. Everyone pays, and individuals withdrawal when they need to.

That's the way civilised societies work.

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 14:03:56

Anyone who has ever claimed job seeking benefits but doesn't really want to work can tell you that the system can be manipulated very easily. The sort of work seeking evidence that is accepted includes, claims that they have looked at jobs vacant newspaper columns, registering with an employment agency, phoning some potential employees and writing letters of application (But no proof of postage)

I suspect that job seekers who are compelled to carry out unpaid work won't be dong it 40 hours a week and so in effect they will be receiving more than the minimum wage if it's averaged out over the week. I'm all for it.

territt Fri 27-Sep-13 15:07:36

NicholasTeakozy
They're not handouts. They've already been paid for via NI contributions. But the thieves behind these schemes don't tell you that.

Except for the fact that a lot of the people claiming haven't paid a day in their life's

ttosca Fri 27-Sep-13 15:19:49

> Except for the fact that a lot of the people claiming haven't paid a day in their life's

You know this how?

NicholasTeakozy Fri 27-Sep-13 15:21:47

Do you have a link to prove your statement territ? I'd be interested to see it.

PlotTwist Fri 27-Sep-13 15:32:24

Not any more Mirry, all that seems to be accepted now is actual applications.

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 15:48:59

Plottwist but how many applications are checked by the advisors hat they've actually been posted? It's easy to write one out.

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 16:00:23

"I suspect that job seekers who are compelled to carry out unpaid work won't be dong it 40 hours a week and so in effect they will be receiving more than the minimum wage if it's averaged out over the week "

Eh?

Workfare has been up and running for a while, and many people have already been working at least 30 hours a week. Which comes out at £1.89 per hour for under 25s and £2.39 for over 25s.

What on earth made you imagine your statement above, mirry?

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 16:03:32
mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 16:06:15

Parsingfancy I'm obviously wrong if what you say is correct. however I am all in favour of getting people into work whether paid or unpaid.

ttosca Fri 27-Sep-13 16:10:38

> Parsingfancy I'm obviously wrong if what you say is correct. however I am all in favour of getting people into work whether paid or unpaid.

Work for work's sake?

Even if it doesn't increase their chances of long-term employment (which Workfare has shown NOT to do), and even if it pushes down wages overall in the workforce because employers would rather take on free unpaid placements than paid workers?

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 16:12:50

Yes, work for work's sake. Sitting round watching TV all day is not good for anybody's health or self worth imo.

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Fri 27-Sep-13 16:31:52

As I said on the other thread about this: it makes absolutely no economic sense to provide employers with free labour. Not only does it undermine the existing work force, it also means that people will be working for less than minimum wage therefore unable to pay tax or contribute to the economy. Work for work's sake only make sense if you are a business looking for a tax payer subsided workforce. And then only in the short term.

Mirry - would you be happy if you were made redundant, then rehired to do the same job for less than a third of minimum wage?

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 16:40:16

Saskia that would not happen to me

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 16:41:42

Call me a cynic but I wonder how many of the posters on this thread who object to the latest government employment policy are not working?

HeySoulSister Fri 27-Sep-13 16:44:09

well ive just come off JSA....very easy to manipulate them into thinking you have been searching

I wrote on my booklet,which you fill in as evidence,that I had a job offer....the advisor DIDNT EVEN READ IT.....they never did. they just skim it to make sure it has been filled in....you get a 5 min slot....the same script read to you every 2 weeks...

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 16:47:58

Heysoulsister glad you agree. I've also been on JSA and can confirm what you say.

BaldricksTurnip Fri 27-Sep-13 16:52:33

I love the way people get in to a state about benefit 'scroungers' and feel completely happy with people on benefits being treated like nothing on earth, yet are strangely silent about the despicable amount that these Tory fatcats pay themselves for bringing our country to its knees. If people have got any sense they will join me in voting these Tory bastards OUT at the next election.

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 16:53:30

Perhaps I can rephrase Saskia's Q: if you were made redundant, then sent to work for Tesco for a third of minimum wage, would you be happy?

BaldricksTurnip Fri 27-Sep-13 16:53:50

And no I am not on benefits.

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 16:56:03

Baldricks you clearly have a political agenda that goes way beyond workfare. Your posts don't become you. Maybe try the SWP or similar?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Fri 27-Sep-13 16:58:29

Yes, the long term unemployed should be encouraged to work, BUT

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS AVAILABLE. You can't put every unemployed person in a job. There are physically not enough jobs.

Plus, how does it help the economy and unemployment long term if Tesco etc are PAID to take workfare people AND don't have to pay their wages? Already companies are using workfare people in preference to regular employees, as in unskilled roles workfare is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper.

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Fri 27-Sep-13 17:01:24

mirry So it won't happen to you, but it's okay if it happens to other people?

And yes, I am working, for considerably more than mw. That doesn't mean I believe I can either feel smug, or bury my head in the sand and assume the economy won't affect me.

BillyBanter Fri 27-Sep-13 17:03:18

People get benefits because they can't work, don't have work, don't have enough work or don't get paid enough for the work that they do.

People who work should be paid. Companies who have work carried out by people should pay those people for their work. Our taxes should not be paying companies' wages bills. If there is a job then someone should be paid to do it, not forced to do it for free.

In workfare people are working for free. companies are getting you and me to pay their wages bills. Why are you not complaining about that? You are subsidising Tesco? You like that?

This will put more people out of work, who will then have less chance of finding alternative work and so will also be forced to work for free. Wages will be forced down even further than now. Eventually (if not already) your wages will also be forced down or you will also be made redundant. In what way do you workfare supporters think that is a good thing?

BillyBanter Fri 27-Sep-13 17:05:15

And for the record I have never claimed benefits, never been out of work, and have always earned well above minimum wage.

HeySoulSister Fri 27-Sep-13 17:05:36

look at it from Tesco(if we are using them as the main culprits) point of view......unqualified workfare workers,no references,no enthusiasm,no experience.....these people take time to get to anywhere near the standard required to do a job effectively.

don't you think Tesco will eventually realise that workfare is a false economy for them?

LittleRobots Fri 27-Sep-13 17:05:46

I'm really aware of all those who have now slipped through the esa. Too sick to work, but not sick enough to get esa. Those with me or depression or similar.

Also those with children who will have a nightmare of arranging childcare for something that isn't a proper job.

usualsuspect Fri 27-Sep-13 17:07:23

If they are doing work for free, then the employers who use them don't have to employ someone.

So there are fewer paid jobs around.

So tell me how is it a good thing?

HeySoulSister Fri 27-Sep-13 17:13:27

but the employer will have the headache of having to have staff to both train and supervise the workfare people......

I think that it will be dropped by most employers once the novelty has worn off....sorry,but ive seen and smelled (weed) too many JSA claimants,the same ones seem to be sat outside every sign on day. stoned,drunk,loud.....how will Tesco be happy having these kind of clientele wearing their uniforms?

I literally signed off JSA last week after being on it since march. there are two types of claimant and those I describe are the majority

BillyBanter Fri 27-Sep-13 17:14:59

Hey For starters you have completely stereotyped everyone who has to do workfare. Some massive assumptions there. Many people will be desperate enough and hopeful enough of maybe getting a job at the end to put the effort in. They will not all be unqualified for those jobs, they may even have had those jobs before, and have references.

These jobs are not manager positions. People are taken on short-term to do them all the time, or used to be until they could be covered by workfare. If they were good enough to pay money to then, even if they were just working for a couple of months then the same is true now.

I hope you find yourself in the same position one day. If you think this is ok for them, then presumably you think it's ok for you.

usualsuspect Fri 27-Sep-13 17:15:33

They don't even provide uniforms or training.

It's unpaid labour,nothing more.

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Fri 27-Sep-13 17:17:16

Thinking about it, why is it even relevant whether people posting on this thread are claiming benefits or not. Surely, even if we all were, we would still have the right to discuss and criticise something we disagreed with. Or is it now the case that the unemployed are not allowed to air grievances? They should just doff their caps and suck it up.

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 17:18:07

There are people doing workfare at Tesco who are considerably more qualified and experienced than Tesco CEO Terry Leahy was when he first worked - and was paid - stacking shelves at Tesco as a summer job.

I can't believe that in the current economic climate, anyone can imagine the only people on JobSeekers Allowance are those who are almost unemployable or have no experience.

HeySoulSister Fri 27-Sep-13 17:21:17

nah,not stereotyped anyone.....its what I heard and saw at the jobcentre.....did say there are different types of claimants. saw it myself...didn't just read about it in the DM

funny how I got a job offer once I had something recent to put on my own cv....straightaway in fact. been there myself billy....I got something from it. did unpaid work that i'm unqualified to do and BINGO!

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 17:22:58

Hence the Cate Reilly lawsuit. She was a graduate doing voluntary work relevant to her career, which she had to drop to do workfare at Poundland.

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 17:25:27

Was your unpaid work workfare, HSS? If so, can I ask what it was?

niceguy2 Fri 27-Sep-13 17:26:31

Yes, the long term unemployed should be encouraged to work, BUT

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS AVAILABLE.

That's a nonsense argument. There will always be a number of unemployed in any labour market as people are in/out work for many reasons.

As more people enter work, this stimulates demand and more jobs are created.

Furthermore just because there isn't a 1:1 jobseeker:job ratio doesn't preclude the fact the person should be looking hard for work.

You will never ever get a market with x number of available jobs and x number of workers available. It's simplistic and naive.

BaldricksTurnip Fri 27-Sep-13 17:26:46

mirry- don't be such a patronising arse. What are you talking about- I don't have a 'political agenda', I'm just sick of people being exploited and treated like animals by a government that it purely self serving. A government that got in on a technicality. I care about people and how they are treated. Sorry if that offends you, let's hope that if you are ever in a position where you need sympathy and help that you come across people like me eh?

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Fri 27-Sep-13 17:27:04

What about those people who do have something to put on their cv? In fact, they have very long and comprehensive cvs, but due to age, infirmity, or simply a lack of available jobs aren't able to find anything.

I know someone who was made redundant from a professional, managerial role in his late 50s after working continuously since he left school. He's being sent to stack shelves on workfare, even though the person he sees at the job centre admits it won't improve his prospects one iota. Quiet the opposite.

PlotTwist Fri 27-Sep-13 17:27:46

Yes, you're half right Mirry. Detail all your applications (that they can't check, but they do want you to primarily use the .gov site and give them access so they can) and they will probably just glance at it. Write down that you only looked at websites/ phoned employers and they are now deeming this not enough.

I am currently not working. Between children and MH issues I've not worked for years. Despite this, I'm not totally against workfare. I just think there ought to be a better system. I also have no decent work references, so I'm volunteering in an effort to boost my CV (on top of the courses I've done). I'm still getting nowhere. Though I do live in one of the most deprived cities in the UK. There is a huge unemployment rate around here.

And HeySoulSister, I know exactly the sort of claimant you mean. We're not all sat around sipping special brew and smoking weed outside the job centre at 10am, but there are some that do.

usualsuspect Fri 27-Sep-13 17:28:44

I know a few young people who were desperate for jobs who have done workfare at Poundland in the hope they will get a job at the end of it.

They take very few on after workfare and even if they do take you on,you are lucky to get anything other than an 8 hour contract.

HeySoulSister Fri 27-Sep-13 17:35:00

everyone on JSA needs to take any job,apply for as many as possible,not sit around waiting for one in their 'field' to crop up.....so what if they have degrees/experience. I nnoticed quite a few people saying that they would hold out til they found something they had done before

no,my work was voluntary....didn't want to do it,but workfare talk was being bandied around,so I took the voluntary option before it got to that stage. now ive got a job,started this week,and still keeping my voluntary work on (a disability charity) cos I like my client and his family and I can see I make a difference to them. did intend to leave,but I cant.

NicholasTeakozy Fri 27-Sep-13 17:37:14

That's a nonsense argument.

So, '*nice*'*guy*, can you explain why they are doing this in a jobs market that shows just over 400000 vacancies being chased by 2.65 million JSA claimants, not to mention around 7 or 8 million underemployed people.

How, other than lining the pockets of scumbags like A4E, other workfare providers and the corporations is this going to help? And no, workfare is proven to not help get unemployed people into work. In fact, it's worse than if nothing is done. Proof is easy to find.

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Fri 27-Sep-13 17:38:40

That doesn't answer the question I posed. What about people who because of their age or health status are very unlikely to find work when they are competing against younger, able bodied people?

The man I mentioned above has applied for any job he is capable of doing, not just those in his field, but at 59 no one wants to employ him. 30 hours a week of free shelf stacking is not going to change that.

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Fri 27-Sep-13 17:39:16

That last post was to Hey, not Nicholas btw

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 17:40:34

Baldricks I think it was something you said ie "Tory fatcats -bringing our country to its knees-Tory bastards OUT"

It reminded me of some of the fanatics who were on the demonstrations I took part in many years ago when I was young and naive

tethersend Fri 27-Sep-13 17:40:51

Why would poundland bother taking on employees when they can get the work done for free, usual?

BaldricksTurnip Fri 27-Sep-13 17:45:27

mirry- please give me an example of how the Tories are not bringing the country to its knees, really I'm fascinated. As yes, anyone with any sense will vote them out. It's not fanatical, it's just the truth.

HeySoulSister Fri 27-Sep-13 17:46:56

saskia that's rubbish,B&Q for example employ older people

DumDum32 Fri 27-Sep-13 17:47:11

everyone on JSA needs to take any job,apply for as many as possible,not sit around waiting for one in their 'field' to crop up.....so what if they have degrees/experience. I nnoticed quite a few people saying that they would hold out til they found something they had done before

Hey when someone has spent 3-4 years doing a degree in a specific area or have been working in particular role for year y on on earth should they not have a choice in what job they want to do! everyone has a right to find a suitable job. working in a job that u don't like just means hassle for u & ur employer as u would not be putting in 100%.

usualsuspect Fri 27-Sep-13 17:47:19

Poundland have a steady stream of unpaid labour,tethers.

It makes me so angry.

usualsuspect Fri 27-Sep-13 17:49:06

And if you don't do the 6 weeks of 30 hours a week for £53 jsa.

You get sanctioned.

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 17:49:33

Baldricks You can rant all you like about the tories but I'm never going to enter into a political discussion about them. It would be pointless and you would just get hot under the collar.

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 17:50:54

Oh agreed, HSS, having a degree is not a reason to never do low-skilled jobs.

My point is it's absolutely not the case that poor old Tesco, etc, are just giving charitable assistance to people who need the experience to learn how to get up in the morning or put their clothes on.

Many people on workfare there are the same people who would have been in work there, before this scheme started.

tethersend Fri 27-Sep-13 17:52:00

Exactly, usual. Workfare makes employers less likely to employ people. Madness.

HeySoulSister Fri 27-Sep-13 17:52:51

DumDum no,because they take any job offer to get off the benefits,THEN they can continue the search for the perfect job to suit them at the same time.

BaldricksTurnip Fri 27-Sep-13 17:53:01

It's not a rant though is it? Your unwillingness to enter into a debate about it says a lot tbh. I actually resent being made out to be some kind of militant extremist by you mirry. The views I have are echoed by most people I talk to and I'm just an ordinary wife and mum.

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 17:54:29

Baldricks just give it a rest. We occupy different worlds

noddyholder Fri 27-Sep-13 17:54:55

Funny how there is suddenly work for all the people who can't find jobs when the 'salary' is 60 quid a week. Fuckers all of them

cubedmelon Fri 27-Sep-13 17:57:33

I have to say that for three out of the four people I know who are claiming JSA, seeing this has made me really happy. They make no secret of milking the system and avoiding work has become a hobby. It makes my blood boil hearing them and I cannot wait to see them finally be made to work after years and years of mocking the system.

For the other person I know on JSA, this is a real shame. They are extremely skilled in quite a specific area and are struggling to find work. Their skill will probably be wasted by them taking an unsuitable position in another field, this may reflect badly on their cv if a vacancy in their existing profession comes about a later date.

My local area needs more PCSO's, people to listen to children reading in schools, companionship in hospitals and nursing homes. Surely there are ways of doing this without 'stealing existing jobs'?

As with everything, there is never a 'one size fits all' though and it will be a good thing for some and not others.

BaldricksTurnip Fri 27-Sep-13 17:57:42

What world do you inhabit then? Because I inhabit the one with the exploited poor and the shit government.

ubik Fri 27-Sep-13 17:59:09

It's totally uncompetitive though, isn;t it. It flies in the face of tory free market economics doesn't it.

If you are a supplier, paying your staff a reasonable living wage, providing maternity benefits. sick leave etc etc and your buyer is profiting from staff paid for by the taxpayer then surely it will hit your profit margins if your buyer can sell at a lower price to increase market share/ push volumes.

That would then force you to cut wages for your staff to protect your bottom line and your staff will have less money to spend...

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Fri 27-Sep-13 18:01:21

HeySoulSister Rubbish? Really? That's very eloquent.

And B&Q may employ some older people, but obviously they can't employ every single older person who requires a job.

There is a huge problem for older/sick/disabled people seeking employment. Google it if you don't believe me. Alternatively, keep on kidding yourself that the long term unemployed are all drunken bums who don't want to work. And hope that one day when you're older it doesn't happen to you.

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter Fri 27-Sep-13 18:03:09

BaldricksTurnip Well, if you're a militant then the majority of people in this country must be too, because last time I checked most people don't vote Tory.

expatinscotland Fri 27-Sep-13 18:03:30

So you want such people around the most vulnerable people, cubed? You are happy with schemers and thugs round kids in school and old people in care homes?

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 18:08:26

Thanks for describing your voluntary work, btw, HSS. I've always strongly believed that that appropriate and genuine voluntary work can make a difference to employability, while (if carefully chosen) not affecting the existence of paid jobs, so it's lovely to see that borne out.

I used to do voluntary work when I first became too ill for my full-time job. I'm not yet as well as I was then, but I've looked into starting again – but it turns out under new regulations I'd have to register it with the DWP even if the voluntary stuff was less than an hour a week. And the paperwork and dealing-with-DWP-hassle would almost certainly end up being more work than the work. So I'm actually not going to do it.

DumDum32 Fri 27-Sep-13 18:08:57

heySS r u telling me ppl who qualify as teachers, Dr's, accountant etc would take up a staking shelf job in tesco/poundland? if these ppl r not expected to do so then y should any1 else. it's about having a choice & this government is taking that choice away from individuals.

I totally agree with other that is another hideous scheme to exploit people!

usualsuspect Fri 27-Sep-13 18:13:12

Some people would be happy to get a shelf stacking job if they were paid a wage to do it.

There won't be any bloody paid shelf stacking jobs though will they, if employers can get Labour for nowt.

ParsingFancy Fri 27-Sep-13 18:15:18

Yep, DumDum, it's long been known that it's better for the whole economy for teachers and accountants to be, well, teaching and accounting.

The reason jobseekers used to have, IIRC, 6 months during which they could be picky, before they had to take any job or else, wasn't to be nice to the jobseekers: it was to do what was good for the economy.

cubedmelon Fri 27-Sep-13 18:16:30

expat who mentioned thugs? Are you suggesting that people in receipt of JSA are thugs?

The point I am making is that there are certain people who could work but choose not to and I welcome them having the choice of either doing some work or not getting their benefit.

I did also say that one size does not fit all and there are some instances where this system wont work and will let people down. I know if my children grow up and for whatever reason have to claim JSA for a long period of time, for their own good I would encourage them to undertake some sort of work.

expatinscotland Fri 27-Sep-13 18:18:38

You say they are people who manipulate things, cubed, that sounds kind of low-life to me. You'd be happy with people who are that way round vulnerable people?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Fri 27-Sep-13 18:21:39

I'm very against this. I think that if people are going to work for a company, they should do so for proper wages. Not government benefits.

It's a horrible, cynical scheme that provides what is essentially dressed-up slave labour for unscrupulous companies. I'm willing to bet that the employees of the companies will suffer in the long-run too - less job security in a company with slave-labourers on their books.

DumDum32 Fri 27-Sep-13 18:27:44

I think it would be good for economy for people to be in paid jobs & not be exploited by companies under this workfare melarchy!

Minifingers Fri 27-Sep-13 18:28:11

I have no problem with the government providing work for the unemployed, paid at minimum wage. It need not be work that is particularly meaningful, and can go on until the unemployed person finds a job they would rather do.

Unpaid work experience on the other hand needs to be relevant, and time limited.

cubedmelon Fri 27-Sep-13 18:31:58

expat they are bleeding a flawed system dry - yes. Manipulative - maybe towards the system but being manipulative towards the system doesnt mean they are going to bash someone over the head for money does it? Thuggish - no and I havent once said they are.

You will draw your conclusions about this new plan based on the people and circumstances in your life and me in mine.

I wont change my mind. I also think, although its slim, there is more chance of gaining employment whilst getting some work experience for your JSA than an employer knocking your door and offering you a job. You've gotta be in it to win it. Frame of mind and all that and when I was out of work I started to fall into a trap of being comfortable and maybe withdrawn. I volunteered in the end and it boosted my confidence immensely.

As ive said it wont work for everyone but it would have helped me feel better and I stand by what I said about if my children are in that position I would certainly encourage them to do this sort of thing.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree. smile

garlicbaguette Fri 27-Sep-13 18:42:56

I'm too upset to read the whole thread yet blush

In America, people are regularly laid off so their employers can get them back on workfare. State departments have been particularly guilty of this.

Firms get a payout for each placement they take on. They get free staff - paid from taxes - with no liability for employment rights, and you nice taxpayers give them a cheque for getting free staff. If they keep their free staff for more than six weeks, you give them another handout of between £2k and £6k.

Still think it makes sense?

TheHammaconda Fri 27-Sep-13 18:43:44

This is just wrong for so many reasons, it makes me so angry.

I cannot for life of me see why anyone would consider it a good idea. It depresses real wage rates, reduces the demand for labour, reduces aggregate demand, lowers the government's potential tax revenue, does nothing to actually improve the work opportunities available for the unemployed, does very little to improve the occupational mobility of the unemployed and further stigmatises and alienates the unemployed.

Of the 1.14million people that have been referred to the Work Programme only 168,000 have gone on to work for 6 months. 14.7%. What a fucking joke.

DameFanny Fri 27-Sep-13 19:15:24

I may be a bit behind the thread, but has anyone mentioned yet that people can be sanctioned for not attending a work placement because they couldn't afford to travel to the town it was in?

garlicbaguette Fri 27-Sep-13 19:19:51

You're right, Fanny angry They do all sorts of illogical shit. On a thread earlier this week, somebody told how their DS had to go to placement interview at the same time as they were due to sign. Neither party would change his appointment. You get sanctioned for not going to the interview. You get sanctioned for not attending your signing. He got sanctioned.

topicofaffairs Fri 27-Sep-13 19:26:18

I disagree with workfare because it decreases actual jobs Dec employers can get free workers.

TheHammaconda Fri 27-Sep-13 19:29:13

DameFanny & Garlic that is ridiculous angry angry angry

DameFanny Fri 27-Sep-13 20:06:30

None of these "initiatives" are about getting people into work - it's all just about getting the numbers down. But by giving free labour to companies they're reducing the number of real jobs available.

edam Fri 27-Sep-13 20:19:03

Cubed - the fact is, people on UK workfare are less likely to get a job than they would have been if the government had left them alone to actually look for work. It is costing taxpayers MORE to harass unemployed people - workfare keeps them out of work, it doesn't help them in. Those are not mere assertions, they are the results of the evaluation of the work programme.

Why would any sane person want to waste money keeping people out of work and treating them badly?

Only possible reasons are a. people don't understand that the programme is a disaster or b. you are a government minister determined to bash the unemployed and don't care how cruel you are being.

QueFonda Fri 27-Sep-13 20:23:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HeySoulSister Fri 27-Sep-13 20:28:05

All that currently exists at job club. Cv help/skills/courses.... It's already in place

mirry2 Fri 27-Sep-13 20:48:33

I went on a CV writing course through the Job club. I was the only one not compelled to do by the JSA agency. I wanted a job and was trying my hardest to get one but none of the others on the 3 day course was looking for work. They were either doing cash in hand jobs or were happy to be unemployed and they were all really annoyed that they were being made to go on the course or be penalised. I didn't finish the course because on day 3 I had an interview and got the job.

cubedmelon Fri 27-Sep-13 20:57:47

edam The fact (and it is an actual fact that I have seen first hand and not something I have read) some people wont look for a job if left to their own devices, they will happily claim JSA and mock the system and then laugh about it, thats not me being cruel, thats actually happening right now.

What about people that work and claim JSA at the same time. If they had to do workfare then they physically couldnt do both. Surely irradicating this will be beneficial.

As I have said in each of my posts it doesnt fit for everyone. Of course I understand the implications of it, if it goes wrong. Lets face it though, the system clearly isnt working now so what else should we do? Nothing? Maybe making JSA a smaller amount for those unwilling to do the workfare scheme and the full amount for those willing to? The actual fact is that there are people mocking the system and this is a massive drain that needs addressing, along with many other issues I might add.

I know my opinion is unpopular and I am comfortable with taking a flaming but things need to change.

edam Fri 27-Sep-13 21:03:58

cubed - but workfare doesn't actually DO anything about the situation you describe. The numbers have been crunched, properly and rigorously, and people on the work programme are less likely to get a job. Are you really happy as a taxpayer that you are handing over shedloads of cash to keep people on benefits and stop them getting work?

It's worth while discussing problems in the system, and how to encourage and support people back into work, but the work programme is not the answer. It is actively damaging and a massive waste of money.

QueFonda Fri 27-Sep-13 21:04:40

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

edam Fri 27-Sep-13 21:07:22

It also cost £63m to introduce the programme - because the government had to end existing contracts with organisations trying to get people back into work. £63m just thrown away! National Audit Office

QueFonda Fri 27-Sep-13 21:39:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now