to think a well designed workfare for benefits would have helped avoid the riots?

[TheRealTillyMinto]

By well designed i mean:

• is only for people fit enough to work and those without caring responsibilites
• is for e.g. 2/3 days per week to allow time for job hunting
• is used to perform extra jobs not make more people redundant

The looters seem to want something for nothing. I know that many of the looters are too young to work and I have no idea what percentage are employed/students/unemployed but think it would help change from a culture of 'my rights' to a culture of 'my rights and my responsbilities'.

AIBU?

Shit, somehow missed out a whole paragraph - I don't know what you mean by 'looters', OP, but the jobs aren't magically there for them either.

Arrrrgh - certainly 'did not come with that level of interview commitment'...

I no expert on it, but we have a "Work for the Dole" program here in Aus. I think it's optional and if you chose to do it you get a slight increase in your payment. It's not for people wanting their next marketing exec job its for people who have little or no work experience and is meant to give them something to put on thier CV and some confidence that they can do a job.

Sounds fairly reasonable to me.

North Wales does a similar thing (not sure if it's still going) - only they actually employ young people with no experience, and pay them minimum wage while they learn various admin skills for a couple of months. If the work needs doing, then employ them at minimum wage. If not, and it is going to be linked to benefits, then send them on some real work experience! Get companies to offer slots where these kids can go to the BBC, to magazines and newspapers, to the City, to engineering companies, etc etc. Show them what the top looks like. Show them the ways to break out. Get them talking to the people that make the decisions - give them the confidence that way. Much better than sweeping up litter, which I have seen proposed.

Does this 'culture of entitlement' extend to embezzling expenses cheat MPs or bankers claiming £KK bonus after destroying the banks? No? Just unemployed kids, then. There was a guarantee work or study scheme under the last govt (which was apparently beyond awful and ruined the economy). That scheme was abolished by the Condems. I have no prob with that idea, but not in favour of making it a punitive measure against unemployed people. They're not scroungers, there are no jobs.

'I will have the think and get back. Also the question about what non meanial jobs could be done by workfare as well.'

Think? Well, hope no one's holding their breath then.

By your title, you linked benefits to this so-called culture of entitlement, wanting something for nothing, looting and rioting. You very obviously did so because every poster construed the title and OP in the same way.

So yes, please do attempt to think, perhaps before you write a load of nonsense. Again.

aliceliddell of course the culture of entitlement applies to bankers and MPs - i did not mention them because i dont have any ideas on solving them as a problem. My OP said would this help, meaning contribute to a solution, but there are obviously many things that need to change for greater fairness.

i like your comment about non punative - had a very interesting discussing with DP about what should the goals of such a program be?

CustardCake i agree with you in the general sense that we all have the same propensity for dishonesty but the riots were in poor areas (i live in one). if your a rich you have more abilty to rip people off through other methods. e.g. bankers and MPs dont need to physically robs somewhere.

How can you have workfare and avoid making more people redundant?
(1) legislate in employment law that you cannot make someone redundant then replace them with someone on workfare. if it happens, the individual can take a case to employment tribunal and get their old job back.
(2) to avoid replacing people leaving a job through natural wastage then being replaced by someone on workfare, you limit the number of hours and the period of time someone an perform the task on workfare. e.g. after 6 months, you can either take them on as an employee or you have to close the workfare post and the organisation has to stop benefitting from the work being done.

How can you avoid only menial jobs being available on workfare?
I wonder if large companies could be encouraged to make workfare posts avialable from a CSR (corp and social responsibilities) prespective - accross many different roles. you could then apply for a workfare post in hte same way as a job.
How do you stop workfare preventing people finding jobs who are already fulltime actively job seeking?
by only applying workfare after a period of time, and that period of time could be increased during economic downturns. if someone had jobhunted for 1 year, maybe doing something different x days per week on workfare will help them to get a job in the end. their current plan is not working so maybe something different will help.
What should the goals be?
to get longterm unemployed people back to work quicker than without, in comparable jobs. you can only find out if it works by running a proper pilot and comparing the results with people not on the scheme. if people get back to work quicker, in comparable jobs, it is not punative.

Stop benefitting from the job being done?!

If there is a job to be done offer them a proper contract.

OPS but employers are not offering enough jobs for everyone & something has to change if we want to change the situation. i am making a suggestion as to what that change could be.

How do you think we can get employers to offer more jobs then?

What about childcare?
What about costs!

If someone were doing the minimum wage jobs for real, then they would be entitled to wtc and childcare vouchers

Employers are not offering enough jobs for everyone. Okay. So then how, if employers are not offering enough jobs in the first place, is workfare supposed to work?

Here's a spade.

ILT i said in the OP "is only for people fit enough to work and those without caring responsibilites", but maybe it could be more flexible for people with caring responsibilities.

Do you have any thoughts as to how it could work in a positive way for people needing childcare?

No, because I think it's an entirely stupid idea entirely. It's putting the cart before the horse and penalising people who are out of work.

The problem is lack of job creation, not people on benefits.

You can't say having dc is a 'caring responsibility'. Once they are 7 parents are expected to look for work too,BUT they would qualify for wtc/childcare so they aren't EXCLUDED

Your plan excludes lone parents

lachesis i think job creation is part of the problem not the only problem. What do you think can be done to create more jobs?

ILT so do you think there is no way that workfare could work in a positive way for lone parents?

That age is dropping to 5 next year, Tiffany, and the OP will be back with the usual, 'Oh, but I didn't mean people like you, just, you know, them.' That's how it always goes.

The problem is the lack of non-temp, FT jobs that pay min wage or above. Eastern European immigrants (all EU/EEA immigrants) can take zero hours contracts, PT, seasonal work often enough not because they're just so much better than any Brit worker (who are all workshy and lazy, of course), but because they come on their own with no children in tow. This means they can live anywhere, as cheaply as possible. They can get on their bikes and move round with the work, no worries about catchment areas, accommodation for a family, etc. Yet, let us not forget, they can and do claim child tax credit, working tax credit AND child benefit for kids who have never set foot in the UK.

So let's, for once, engage our brains when talking about policies rather than spouting off a load of drivel.

lachesis so do you have any ideas about how to solve the problem as you see it? you might think making zero contract hours illegal is the solution, leaving the EU etc?

Sorry but I do not have the same propensity for dishonesty as those feral idiots and I resent anyone saying so - I have morals that I live by and would never ever dream of breaking the law for gain regardless of what was going on around me.

The problem is that people have been used togetting stuff for nothing for so long in terms of benefits that they cannot understand they have to work for things that they want.

I have said it time and time again but we have a state education system and if peoplereally want to better themselves they work their bollocks off at school and acheive.

If there's a job to be done it needs to be paid at least at the minimum wage, otherwise it's just exploitative.

If there is work to be done then employ people to do it and pay them the going rate. Workfare sounds horribly like punishment and making an example of "those sort of people" (i.e. not our sort!). You cannot lump all benefit claimants into one uneducated, idle, scrounging category. Many are on JSA due to the recession and desperate to work and get their lives back. A year ago it looked like my DH was going to be among them (luckily the company recovered enough after a while on short hours). Apart from about a month a few years back he has worked for 26 years. If he were to be made redundant how would being forced to pick up dog turds down the park "boost his self esteem" or "give him a sense of purpose"? It would simply p**s him off, take time away from job seeking and put cleaners out of work.

"What can be done to create more jobs?" Maybe the MPs and Local councillors could job share. My local councillors seem to me overpaid and useless. Let the people on benefits have a go. They get to make a difference, we end up with fresh blood questioning the questionable practices among all the old boys. Everyone is a winner (except the MPs/ councillors, but they could surely get a part-time job to fill the hours taken up by their job sharer)