To agree with workfare in principal?

[IAmMiranda]

Donning my flame retardant underwear - though note I'm not for the current scheme, but the principal is sensible.

Working for unemployment benefits makes sense to me - provided that the "wage" is fair for the hours and skills. Eg. £90 a week job sellers could equal 15 hours of charity work?

Taking into account disabilities, childcare and other responsibilities I really don't think its unfair to provide people with jobs to earn the equivalent of benefits?

I do think its wrong to line the pockets of corporations, reduce jobs for other workers etc but surely charity work is an option?

I think I've probably missed some huge glaring point but AIBU?

(NOTE: I have previously been in reciept of JSA and would happily have done 15 hours a week and had plenty of time to job search)

Sqiglet you and others keep quoting how it is for those on jsa for over 2 years.

fluffys daughter was made to do workfare after 3 weeks. This has happened to others too. So the 2 year thing is not how its going to happen on the ground Id put money on it

toys.usvsth3m.com/iain-duncan-smiths-realistic-unemployment-simulator/

I am fortunate enough to have never been in the situation where I need to claim benefits.

At the moment I am not working - have been on an extended career break to raise my family. My CV is reasonable - however I have filled a couple of education gaps by going back to night school - and yet my CV is not enough to get my foot through the interview door. And so I am now doing some voluntary work to add value to my CV (and self esteem). I would be delighted to be paid to do this work - I'm not on benefits or registered for JSA though.

But yes - absolutely - the money for nothing culture is ridiculous. If I were claiming I would want to be putting something back whilst enhancing my career prospects. Makes perfect sense to me.

Serial, if you did workfare you would never get your foot in the interview door as you would lose your money if you took time off to apply for a job.
It is not the idea of the gov to get the unemployed working. Its their way of gaining votes by pleasing the benefit bashers.
Long term unemployed are a drop in the ocean in terms of benefit costs. It is costing more to implement than will ever be saved.

Agree with what others have said.

I have no problem with the concept of working for money.

However, if the jobs are there, why aren't they being used to employ people?

Conversely, which organisation wants to manage a workforce of unskilled people who are there under duress?

Apart from the controversy and bad press over being involved in workfare, I would be surprised if Tesco et al got much out of spending time delegating reluctant people to do apparently unnecessary jobs.

However, if the jobs are there, why aren't they being used to employ people?

because if you create a job, the successful applicant is unlikely to be someone who has not worked for the last 2 years - because there are likely to be candidates who the employer perceives as better/less risk.

and how would you force someone to apply for a particular job, without the sanction of loss of benefits?

You might as well write me off completely then given I haven't worked in 9 years...

In that time though I've been raising 4 children, doing community and voluntary work and a law degree but I've not been gainfully employed so I clearly am incapable of stack shelves in poundland(!)

Why not just bring back workhouses and have the scroungers breaking rocks and moving piles of coal from one place to another?

People need to get real, this plan is nothing at all to do with helping people get skills, nothing at all about helping people benefit from being employed. It is everything to do with arbitrarily punishing a group of people it is popular to bully and stigmatise and creating a free work culture from which politicians who are either in business, hoping to be in business or pals with business will benefit from financially...

And "the sanction of loss of benefits" - lets say what we really mean; we plan to starve the most vulnerable people in our society into poorly paid and unstable, unsatisfying work from which rich people, who often don't work themselves, will benefit. You might notice that working for a living is only considered good for the poor, if you are rich suddenly the idea of the 'benefit' of being exploited working for a living suddenly doesn't exist.

"OFfred You might as well write me off completely then given I haven't worked in 9 years...

In that time though I've been raising 4 children, doing community and voluntary work and a law degree but I've not been gainfully employed so I clearly am incapable of stack shelves in poundland(!)"

WTF? Have you been claiming dole money during that 9 years? If yes, you are a benefit fraud, if no then wtaf are you blethering on about being as workfare clearly won't apply to you. How did you even manage to make workfare about you?

offred but it is unlikely that you would successful at applying for many jobs.

and there probably would be better candidates for a retail job.

unsatisfying work from which rich people, who often don't work themselves how many people in the UK are rich and don't work?

Loads

what percentage?

I know lost of people on good incomes & everyone works FT.

People on "good incomes" are not the ones benefitting from this scheme and they are not rich either, they are on "good incomes"

Who on earth is rich and doesn't work in the UK? The wives of bankers etc perhaps - but most people work for their money nowadays

It really isn't a difficult concept to understand. There are workers who provide labour from which the owners profit. It is the owners who are the rich who do not work.

if there are loads, what percentage of the population are super rich?

if you are top 1% income you need to work.

so you are talking about 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.001%?

It is the owners who are the rich who do not work.

name some.

Im on JSA, a year ago i had to go on a course that was 4 weeks long, was a waste of time, how to write a C.V, how to act in an interview, they took us to the shops and told us what to wear for an interview. Anyway we were supposed to have a two week work placement at the end of it, they only found placements for half of us, no idea where they are going to magic all these placements from. I have no problem with doing it it if have, but they don't seem to be set up for someone who already has 25 years work history like myself.

You may not know any of these people. It doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't know anyone from Birmingham, pretty sure it exists though.

Either way, you take my point. Work is only considered to be good for the poor. It is an inconsistent argument given virtually everyone is pointlessly striving to be rich enough to not have to work.

Top 1% don't need to work.

Top 10% do.

well yesterday we worked out the hourly rate that our young friend of 18 is receiving for his five days a week workfare in Poundland, and it is less than a pound an hour

*It is the owners who are the rich who do not work.

name some*
Baring,
Rothschild
Goldsmith

Yes, if I had to go on jsa one of the conditions would be that I have up my course to take a job. Would that benefit me or society - to quit a law degree in the third year to take a shop job? No, these schemes are all about cheating people out of their welfare entitlement and driving down wages.