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)

Across their lifetimes they are net contributors or at some point/currently?

As citizens of a state which we all contribute to through paid and unpaid work from which the state benefits we are all entitled to support from the state.

That is precisely the social pact we've collectively made. It's there because we collectively choose to support each other in certain ways. 'The state' isn't a magic money tree. The key point is we are supporting each other, and we can only make a claim if someone else is there to contribute. You telling them 'but I'm entitled to it' isn't going to wash. It's what we collectivety agree is fair that matters.

and the maths need to add up.

as a nation, we cannot payout more than we are willing to pay in.

I'm not sure of your point mrsbethel. Are you trying to say the money isn't there? I think this is manifestly untrue.

We haven't made a pact with each other. We have all invested in the state to administrate state functions because it is more efficient and effective if done properly to do it this way than for you to knock on your neighbour's door when you lose your job. However the administration of state functions is not protected from the powerful interests of big business in this capitalist economy and therefore business is able to influence the running of the state for its benefit e.g. Through the creation of unemployment and the devaluing of labour.

the devaluing of labour is due to globalisation.

If it was about not having money for welfare the govt would logically be increasing investment as it has done in previous times. Lots of the welfare policies and cuts are costing money rather than saving it. They are not about saving money but devaluing labour and increasing the areas of state administration that companies are able to make a profit from; utilities, education, healthcare etc.

It is all about business.

Devaluing of labour is not about globalisation. We will never be able to compete with china for example. I think you'd have to be wilfully blind to not understand how free work and high unemployment are devaluing labour.

so you think workfare in the UK has a greater influence on the UK economy than a world of....7 billon (mainly cheap workers) and counting?

Undoubtedly it has more influence over the UK economy yes.

This talk about au pairs misses the point that if you are nmw you are unlikely to be living in a house with a spare bedroom. Also, £15 ph is considerably more than you would get in a sandwich shop - more than twice as much, in fact. I think sometimes people on high wages lose sight of how little nmw is.

Offred - sounds like everyone should be aupairs wherever you come from! Aupairs down in the south get about £80-90 per week. Also sounds like there is a huge gap in the market for childcare where you are too. Opportunity to start work as a childminder possibly?

OFFRED do you mean £5 to £15 per hr , I read it as £5-15k p.a

house with a spare bedroom but the poster who mentioned using an au pair did not have a spareroom. the children shared....

What if they're already sharing?

I nearly considered giving an OP my room and sleeping downstairs instead. I realised that while this might have worked out ok for sleeping arrangements, it would not have solved the problem of where my clothes and other things stored in my bedroom would live. My house was tiny, so no space to put it elsewhere.

I'm aware that a lot of this sounds like "yes but" answers, which can be very annoying for those trying to present solutions, but the reality is that a surprising number of people are in situations for which there are no solutions other than acceptance of the fact that they can't make ends meet without state subsidy.

I only have the one child. Should I turf him out of his bedroom and have him share with me? I'm sure social services would have a field day with that one.

I have four children post. I'm doing a law degree. I volunteer with CAB. Not that it matters because I'm not claiming JSA but I couldn't be a childminder. Yes £5-£15 per hour. Not being funny but unless you live in a city it isn't likely there will be many au pairs around. I certainly don't know anyone who uses them.

Really pisses me off when people bluster about things they have and take for granted. Besides I'm not sure of the ethics of paying someone a weekly wage of £80...

an aupair does not work FT. they are not a nanny.

Wallison, why would social services be worried about you sharing a room with your child. I share rooms with my DCs every time we go pretty much anywhere other than home.

I'm not suggesting you should have to by the way - just curious why it would be an issue for SS.

Post - legally that would be counted as overcrowding. If Wallison was in social housing, she would be breaking the terms of her tenancy agreement and could face prosecution or eviction.

Sorry Offred, I'm not trying to "bluster" - just telling it the way it has been for me. I'm a single mum with two DCs, one of whom is Autistic. My life is remarkably short of bluster and I take very little for granted.
The school holidays are a nightmare & I usually feel like I walk on a precarious knife edge - but I have done it & so do lots of others.

I did live and work in London but have lived in a small rural town for the last 7 years - lots of aupairs around. The aupairs I've had have mostly been great and have been happy members of my family. They want to learn English and live in England. They get free board & lodging and some spending money in return for their help. I had 7 of them and am still in touch with 5. It can work really well. I'm not sure what the ethical issue is?

As far as I understand it, a child not having a bed/room separate from their parents can raise red flags. It's completely different to being on holiday. Anyway, I can't quite believe that I am defending the right of my child to have a bed of his own in his own home on a thread where people think that £15 ph is a low wage, so I'll go for now until the conversation turns sensible again.

Wallison, I never said £15 was a low wage, I said it was what I was earning at the time. It was a factual observation, nothing more. That said, it hardly puts me on The Times Rich list!

If children not having a separate room raises a red flag, SS need to get busy. In the private rented sector this happens a lot. However, I am NOT advocating it, I'm just surprised that it is a SS red flag. Humans have lived in shared accommodation for hundreds of thousands of years, seems odd to me that parents sharing with their kids has become a SS issue now.

In my view if you are long term unemployed something is not working. Maybe you are not living in the right part of the country, maybe you didnt get an qualifications, maybe you dont have a trade or anything really to offer an employer.

So, instead of thinking what others can do for you perhaps you need to think about what you can do about it. If you arent getting interviews then you are applying for the wrong jobs. There are plenty of jobs in the SE for people with skills. Why not think about gaining some.

I agree that if your personal circumstances dont get you the job of your choice you will be given one. Otherwise you are literally getting money for doing nothing....

There is this opinion that

a) benefits is an entitlement
b) it should be "free" money

which is simply not the case.

After a certain period of time, one should use up their "free" allocation of money and be placed in a suitable position (not corporations but council based work where no one would otherwise be employed to do it) and effectively be "employed" for the NMW equivalent of their benefits. (Around 11-12 hours a week) The benefits would be a CV gap filler, motivation, possible experience and an incentive not to abuse the system. Not everybody is abusing the system, but people do. Saying that we shouldn't tar all unemployed people with the same brush GOES BOTH WAYS. Yes, we shouldn't assume JSA recipients are all scroungers but similarly we shouldn't be so naive as to believe that everyone is unemployed with absolutely no options or hope.

Childcare is a difficult issue, people shouldn't have children unless they can afford them. I realize that many people don't plan to have kids but do, and some people are in unexpected circumstances but again there are people out there who do not think before procreating.

There should be a JSA provision for childcare to help people get into the work placements.

Yes, it is ridiculous that benefits are stopped because you get a job interview - but this isn't true My sign on day was simply changed to take into account an interview. Similarly for illness or other such circumstances.

JSA is JOB SEEKERS allowance. If you are unfit for work, it isn't the benefit for you. You have to sign a declaration that you are fit for work. If you are unable to work, you shouldn't be on JSA and should be supported in other ways.

I don think anyone I suggesting that an au pair is a solution for every child care requirement.

the poster, who mentioned it, was a lone parent, and solved a seeming unsolvable problem herself.

.....or what handcream said