Working for benefits

[IVFNewbie]

Could there be an argument made to make people that are eligible for work to do some community based work in return for their benefits?

Benefits are for people who can't work.
Any other option is employment, which must abide by employment law.
Absolutely no to people working for benefits.
Better to focus on the plenty of tax shy rather than the few work shy.

Oh, and benefits are also for people who already work but aren't paid a living wage.

People are already working for benefits. Our benefits system is essentially propping up private companies all over the country, as for most people the wages are considered not enough to live on. My friend works in a big expensive supermarket and gets Universal Credit as the wage is considered not enough to live on. Another friend is a SEN support worker at a school, gets UC because the wage is only just about enough for rent and council tax and no food or anything else. Most benefits claimants work, the rest will likely have either long term medical needs or disability (which our NHS cannot cope with in its current state) or so failed by our education/social care system that they don’t have the ability to manage even what people might consider a simple role.

Perhaps in the same way that the current system does?

Oh of course you are 🙄🙄🙄

So you've answered your own question.

The system already weeds out those who are able to work but won't (the work-shy).

Everyone left who is currently in receipt of benefits has already been identified as being unable to work (or they are already working but that's another story). Therefore there would be no-one needing to work for their benefits.

So, as you've already identified, no, there could be no argument made to make people that are eligible for work do some community based work in return for their benefits?

It just required a smidgen of applied thinking.

And its up to you to decide?

Exactly ! Better to have someone employed and off benefits surely than on benefits and forced to volunteer ??!!

Do you really believe that the system currently weeds out all of the work-shy?

Nope.

Another poll pointing out the Tories inevitable fate, and a slew of posts about benefits.

How curious.

Or someone might say 'on benefits and forcing other people to work for them'.

You mean like workfare that was not successful, and widely condemned, then scrapped.

Though it might comfort you to know it's possibly being brought back for those longer term unemployed (12 or 18 months im not sure). I think they're framing it as work experience quite possibly.

I'm sorry you can't see how unethical it is, OP.

No. There's either a job or there isn't.

Being out of work or looking for work or being on benefits isn't punishable by community service.

If a job needs doing ie cleaning graffiti then pay someone properly to do it and not in exchange for benefits. Doing it any other way is just taking advantage of people who may just be down on their luck. You can say force people to take a job like that if there is absolutely no contra indications but they need paying properly.

If you do it for cleaning graffiti why not check out workers,or teachers, police officers - if you start where do you draw the line?

But then employees would get free staff, therefore finding actual employment would be even more difficult for those seeking work!

It weeds out the work-shy that it can identify.

When asked, you said that any work-for-benefits system could identify the work-shy in the same way as the current system. So it will identify the same people. therefore it would be pointless.

If the council employ someone to clean graffiti or whatever then realise they can get someone on benefits to do it for free what do you suppose would happen to the employee? Honestly, I can't believe there are people who really can't think through such an obvious outcome of this ridiculous "proposal" so many seem to spout both on here and elsewhere.

For those on benefits looking for work there could be voluntary positions with charities to continue their experience and not have a gap in their CV, but I think this is already in place. Having said that, I don’t get what the issue with a gap in a Cv is. Whats wrong with saying ‘I had a child and I wanted to be with them’, ‘I had a career break because I felt like it and I could support myself’, ‘I struggled to find work’. But the working world doesn’t like this sort of honesty because you have to constantly be at the ‘hustle’.

The barrier to working for many around here(rural area) is lack of childcare and lack of transport. Forcing them to work for their benefits wouldn't solve this. If they could work voluntarily/compulsorily for their benefits then they'd be able to do paid employment.

Such as system would cost the state extra money on top of benefits through the cost of administering and running it. And it would either be useless work or put someone out of a job. And onto benefits.

Not to mention that it would give jobseekers less time to apply for jobs, do training etc. As well as being a deliberate humiliation that would probably increase depression and reduce motivation.

Benefit fraud is not even a major problem. For every 1p lost to benefit fraud, £2 is lost to tax avoiders. https://fullfact.org/immigration/benefit-fraud-tax-avoidance-losses/ And some of that benefit fraud would be minor things like not registering that a partner has moved in.

So - take your nastiness elsewhere, OP. The Victorians used to try to shame poor people to make them less likely to claim help from the state - breaking rocks, splitting old rope etc. It was pointless and horrible.

Most people will work and make a better life, given a chance. For those who don't, the problems are usually a bit more complex than would be sorted out by a bit of litter-picking.

Op isn't talking about full time working benefits claimants.

Op isn't talking about full time working benefits claimants.

So a single parent for example, even though they manage to get a Lunchtime assistant job for 10 hours a week still have to scrub graffiti/toilets for nothing?

What is your proposal for the people who are employed now on a proper wage (although not enough for the work in my opinion) for street cleaning, litter picking and graffiti removal?

They would lose their jobs, due to new cheaper labour, end up unemployed and receiving benefits. There would be less jobs for them to go for, so eventually they would end up doing the same work they were gainfully employed to do, but for the pittance that is benefits.

We still have plenty of litter and graffiti, so clearly there aren't enough of these people doing this work.