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

[Darkesteyes]

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.

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

I admit to a lol too. I suspect George is the reason the DWP think unemployed people should apply for jobs they aren't qualified to do. After all, George is the chancellor, and he's doing soooo well.

Saskia rofl!

Saskia, you bang on the bloody money there.

Who the fuck thought George could look after a countries budget, fool cant even look after a piggy bank.

JSA is only about 3% of the entire benefits expenditure. The vast majority is: pensions and housing benefit, 80% of which is paid to those in work.

"They continued with bringing down the age of children for IS eligibility. Stupid, stupid move."

Why, age five is stilll way to old. Most mums get 12 months for maternity so it should be in line with that so that everyone is treated the same. The longer on IS the less chance the person has of finding work or the desire to actually work.

Workfare done properly for long term claimants could be a good thing, its not just JSA is all the the other benefits that add up that are essentially handed to people for doing nothing. Would be better if linked to charities or work in the local community but it may be that large businesses already have the admin side and insurance in place so easy to slot them in.

I think it is wrong because it works on the assumption that everyone is a scrounger.

on benefits I mean

I did "work experience" many years ago, neither of the companies I worked for offered me, anyone prior to me or anyone after me a job.

They had the work, we did it, they didn't have to employ anyone as they work was done by the "work experience girl"

I don't see how this helps the jobs market, it just helps the rich get richer - amazing how all these rich boys with their expensive educations are too f*cking stupid to see this.

I would make way more sense if you want people to work for benefit to get them working within the community on things that wouldn't get done otherwise.

As I have been saying all through the exporting of jobs to cheaper countries and the influx of cheap European labour - who will be buying products and services in the UK if a large percentage of the population don't have jobs/earn a reasonable wage.

I really can't believe you, Happymummy. You have no idea. Do you think jobs grow on trees or something?

And why should women have to go back to work when their kids are 1 year? How about bringing up our kids instead of paying other people to do it, if that is how you wish to parent?

Not every job pays enough (even with child care element of working tax credits) to cover childcare. Do you think suitable jobs with a decent amount of pay are just going begging?

How ignorant!

Easier to return to work after a year if you happen to be married and have someone to share the childcare costs and holidays with though, don't you think? As well as having another adult to share the cooking, shopping, housework, laundry, cleaning and admin chores.

A married working mother returning from maternity leave is not being denied equality with a lone parent who has no support and one income. They are in completely different positions.

If you are returning after maternity leave, then you already have a job as well.

Can someone please explain what Workfare is exactly? Are people getting confused with Work Experience, Work Programme and Mandatory Work Activity? (All of which are different things).
The thing the newspaper article references is Community Action Programme, which was Piloted around the time the Work Programme went live in order to have a plan in place to deal with the claimants that "return" to the Jobcentre after 2yrs on Work Programme. It is charity-sector work for people who have spent on average a minimum of 3yrs claiming JSA.

I partly agree with Happymummy (there's a first!) in that Workfare would be better linked to community based stuff.

I'd like to see community charities and volunteering counted as "Workfare" if a claimant is long term unemployed. This would be more valuable than further reducing the amount of jobs out there by allowing Tesco et al to get slave labour.

Of course if someone WANTS to go into retail then Tesco might provide valuable experience but otherwise I cannot see the benefit of it. Much more productive and rewarding to volunteer for charities like food banks etc and help support the local community. Training could be given for example, to support nutrition in hospital so a volunteer would go in to help someone eat their food etc (not suitable for everyone I know), befriending an elderly person, helping in local clubs for the elderly, listening to children read in schools...lots and lots of schemes where people could help.

Then again this will not benefit Gideon's rich friends.

I see the benefits of doing some sort of work scheme if you have been unemployed for a long time. I also see a risk of exploitation which is concerning.

Workfare is the generic term for "working in a role that would normally attract a wage, in return for state benefits instead of that wage".

So the Work Programme and Mandatory Work Activity both include workfare. The current Work Experience programmes run by the JobCentre may also be workfare.

It's possible to do work experience without it being workfare - I've supervised students on two-week placements in my office, but their role didn't look like that of an employee. They shadowed people in different departments during their time, and had the freedom to pick and choose what they took part in.

It's a lovely idea Jake and HappyMummy, unfortunately it generally ends up massively restricted by the claimant. Most, not all, but certainly the majority, have serious criminal records (often including restrictions on what they can do, where they can go, access to computers etc), issues with basic hygiene, no basic literacy / numeracy skills (let alone IT or customer service skills) and a complete lack of routine and structure to their lives (as I said previously, it's after a minimum of 3yrs unemployed before this would be considered - alot of these people have actually been unemployed and claiming JSA for much much longer). It's a lovely idea, it just doesn't often pan out that way.

Sorry, I meant "doesn't pan out" as in not into those community based projects that benefit others positively. It often ends up being charity shop work or similar.

I rather feel that comparing maternity leave and IS for lone parents and trying to make it "fair" is like saying that it's not fair that women get a mandatory bit of maternity leave for physical recovery (is it 2 or 6 weeks?) because men can never get it.

Practically speaking, there are job centres up and down the country that are physically impossible to get into with a pushchair.

Economically speaking, I think we might as well give lone parents IS, than mess about with JSA appointments (which cost money) so they can get a minimum wage job, so that they can be given money for childcare. Someone will say, "how do you know they'll only get a min wage job?"

Simple- if they could walk into a high-wage job, they'd have already done it rather than stay on IS! IS isn't that much, is it?

Thanks Parsing, that's debunked it!

It's certainly cheaper for a lone parent to be on IS than to pay a high percentage of childcare costs, housing benefit top ups and working tax credit should they be working in a minimum or low-waged job.

What ParsingFancy said ^^

I cannot understand why people think this is a good idea.

It's not just not nice. It's economic suicide. When people don't get paid, the economy shrinks. When taxpayers are funding this scheme, it makes it even worse.

I understand why people might think it's a good idea for nebulous 'community' or 'charitable' projects.

But that's because I realise that lots of people don't really think things through.

As many other people have said, these community projects like picking up litter, reading to children or doing admin for a charity are jobs.

Pay people to do them.

Seems to me there must be work available, then. That being the case, why dont they just give people jobs? Its using people for cheap labour and I just bet theyre going to lie to the populace that its going to lead to longterm job prospects. I agree with Darkesteyes that xmas temp jobs etc are going to become a thing of the past.

It seems there are endless amounts of roles that can be filled by someone participating in workfare.
Stacking shelves, sweeping floors, cleaning, filing, answering telephones, running errands, litter picking, scrubbing graffiti, helping at schools, simple gardening tasks, labouring, cold calling, some factory work, working on a till. There are many many more than this.
Basically, any work that is unskilled or doesn't require a lot of training.

I know there are endless roles that can be filled, because these are the roles that are given to workfare participants.

How about, instead of creating these roles for workfare, we create jobs doing exactly the same thing?
I don't understand what is so challenging for some people to understand.

Why does it have to be done under workfare?

How anyone can argue that workfare benefits anyone, whether by giving them work experience or skills or something to put on their CV, when they could gain the same skills/experience by taking the work on in a paid role is beyond me.

The only people who are benefitting from workfare are the companies, who are having the work done for nothing rather than paying for it to be done, which they should be doing.

Why the fucking fuck should anyone in this fucking country have to work for fuck all?? Worse still, they are paying to go to work and then not receiving a wage at the end of it!!!

To anyone who thinks workfare is a good idea....do you work? Would you continue to go to work if you were stripped of your employment rights, and your pay was reduced to just enough to cover your housing costs and travel to work + a few pounds?

If the answer is no, you wouldn't accept those conditions...why the fuckety fuck should anyone else???????

I take exception to that! I work in school and there is a hell of a lot of training and it is dull dull dull.

But I agree. If there are placements for workfare, then there must be work that needs done so why can't they just pay a wage so that people aren't having to claim JS anyway? Makes sense.

There ARE loads of these roles - filled by mainly
volunteers - litter picking/reading with kids in schools,
by community service - graffiti scrubbing/litter picking/gardening/labouring and
by people on minimum wage - or less - for example
by apprentices (£2.65 per hour min wage!!!!) filing/labouring/metal bashing factory work etc....

I don't think it is working on the assumption that everyone on benefits is a scrounger, I think it is trying to force the default position that everyone is TRYING to find a job....

Unable and unwilling to claim anything because I chose to be a SAHM, I now work 12 hours on minimum wage for my £70 odd a week...

little miss sarcastic. It actually takes quite a bit of skill and training to
be succesful with cold calling. Most of these people would not last 5 minutes traisping on a cold wet day knocking on doors and being told to
F Off.

Answering telephones correctly is also a skill that will be far beyond many of these people.

As for these people working in schools that is ridiculous and dangerous,
as many of them will have many psychological problems.