Advanced search

to think that this is economically stupid. Tories to announce full and permanent WORKFARE.

(297 Posts)
Darkesteyes Thu 26-Sep-13 23:09:36

next week according to the Mail.
So how is anybody going to afford to buy anything while working for benefits then.
Even less incentive for companies to take people in proper employment if the workfare workforce is going to increase.

Darkesteyes Fri 27-Sep-13 00:18:57

I dont think im going to be doing much Christmas shopping this year.

Morloth Fri 27-Sep-13 00:20:04

What are you going to DO about it?

MrsTerryPratchett Fri 27-Sep-13 00:23:42

No idea about these guys and whether they are any good but here you go.

Viviennemary Fri 27-Sep-13 00:28:10

I don't think a commercial enterprise should be employing people on workfare. But I think maybe charity work could be acceptable.

MrsTerryPratchett Fri 27-Sep-13 00:37:57

What about those of us, skilled, motivated, hard-working, qualified, talented, passionate people who have careers in the SS/charity sector? Replace us with people who don't want to be there?

By all means have volunteers, I started as one. Don't have slave labour, even in charities.

Viviennemary Fri 27-Sep-13 00:42:40

A lot of charities have people on probation doing work for them. I don't expect they want to be there either. But that's another thing altogether. The point is nobody needs to do work. They just won't get their benefit. Lots of people are toiling for low wages in work they don't particularly like. I don't think it's too much to expect people to contribute something in exchange for benefit.

Darkesteyes Fri 27-Sep-13 00:45:25

Vivienne what about the conflict of interest when it comes to sanctions. A lot of ppl on Esa are going to be on this "scheme". if they are too ill to go into their placement the placement reports them to the Job Centre who then sanctions them So placements like the Salvation Army can report someone for a sanction causing the very homelessness they are suppossed to be against Ditto someone with a heart condition who has ended up on placement at the British Heart Foundation. Can people really not see the MASSIVE conflicts of interest here.

Darkesteyes Fri 27-Sep-13 00:48:04

vivienne someone on jobseekers is NOT the same as someone on probation Being unemployed is NOT a crime.

Viviennemary Fri 27-Sep-13 00:51:53

If people are ill they get a doctor's note the same as working people have to. I am not in favour of sick people being made to work. If everybody is so against all these policies then I'm sure we'll have a different government next time.

Growlithe Fri 27-Sep-13 00:52:26

It's almost funny isn't it? So many of our manufacturing, IT, and other skilled jobs have gone offshore because it is so much cheaper than a UK workforce.

Now they have found a way to undercut the UK workforce where they can't offshore, with the UK unemployed. confused What is the emploYment status of these people? Do they have any employment rights in terms of H&S? Can these people strike?

What left for the bonafide UK workforce? Nothing.

Ezio Fri 27-Sep-13 00:56:32

I did a 4 week work placement in feb, i cant even get a reference to give to people for it, i got a certificate and thats it.

Ezio Fri 27-Sep-13 00:57:47

Vivienne, you do know only a doctors note goes so far right, if JC's doctors say the are fit, back to work they most go.

AnaisHendricks Fri 27-Sep-13 01:00:47

Vivienne - a Doctor's note?

That's all it takes, of course. Ever read the news heard of ATOS?

Darkesteyes Fri 27-Sep-13 01:14:45

People who are already on the ESA had the doctors note a while before Thats why they are on ESA in the first place confused

Darkesteyes Fri 27-Sep-13 01:16:13

vivienne ppl on these work for benefits schemes do not have the same rights as people who are employed and are actually working for wages.

SunshineSuperNova Fri 27-Sep-13 01:19:56

YANBU. How the bloody hell are people meant to find and apply for jobs if they're working full time? And why the fuck is this government giving even more money to large corporations to cause more unemployment?

Viviennemary Fri 27-Sep-13 01:23:16

I don't know a single person who has had to work for benefits. And in any case nobody usually believes what the Daily Mail says. This work for benefits idea has been around for ages but has never got off the ground. And I don't expect it will this time either. So it's probably just a panic about nothing.

Darkesteyes Fri 27-Sep-13 01:26:48

vivienne i did workfare back in 2000. And there are plenty of experiences on the Boycott Workfare website. And a few MNers have posted about their sons daughters/brothers etc having to do it.

its notthe first time that something has been denied.

Darkesteyes Fri 27-Sep-13 01:27:14

Google Cait Reilly

Viviennemary Fri 27-Sep-13 01:37:15

I didn't feel very sympathetic toward Cait Reilly I'm afraid. I thought she was very entitled. And if people did workfare back in 2000 that must have been under a Labour government. I did vote Labour last time but probably won't again. A lot of people think the benefits system needs to be reformed.

poppingin1 Fri 27-Sep-13 02:01:19

So Vivienne, are you saying that you are in support of a system that will most probably lead to an increase in redundancies because large companies know that they will be getting free labour?

They will make people redundant and then take them back on as free labour, while those who are lucky enough to still be in employment and paying tax, will have their taxes being used to pay these people less than minimum wage. It will actually INCREASE the number of people on full time benefits!!!!!!!

Taxes will be used to pay for a labour workforce who will be subsisting on less than the pitiful minimum wage we have now. More people will become jobless as large companies see the opportunity to pay NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA for workers while the taxpayer picks up the tab.


Sorry I know I have paraphrased myself over and over but I am astonished that this is not being understood shock

It is absolute madness!

Darkesteyes Fri 27-Sep-13 02:09:47

Vivienne said.
This work for benefits idea has been around for ages but has never got off the ground

And then said.

And if people did workfare back in 2000 that must have been under a Labour government.

Not doing very well are you? Contradict yourself much? I believe the terminology for what you are doing on this thread is called gaslighting.

Mimishimi Fri 27-Sep-13 03:06:06

This is nuts. Anyone working needs to be paid the minimum wage. Otherwise there is huge incentive for big business to lay us all off and have most of us on 'benefits'. They won't have to pay the workers except through their normal tax contributions.

mirai Fri 27-Sep-13 04:34:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

diaimchlo Fri 27-Sep-13 05:17:55

Workfare would be part way acceptable if the people who are having to endure it are paid a living wage, but they are forced to work 30 hours for £56.80 for under 25s and £71.70 for over 25s. Where is the fairness in that? If the large corporations that use this scheme we made to make the shortfall up to at the very least minimum wage.

If this does come into effect it would not surprise me at all as this Government seem intent on the "I'm alright Jack sod the rest of you" attitude. Look at George Osbourne challenging the proposed bonus cap for bankers angry. Ask him or any of his Tory friends to challenge the problems that he and his cronies have caused to the poor, disabled and disadvantaged of this country and they decide to create more..

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