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)

Offred I don't think that poor people should be sterilized or forced to have abortions (disclaimer) but birth control is effective, and there's very little luck involved in not getting pregnant.

Why are most babies unplanned then?

Birth control is very effective when used correctly. Therein lies the explanation. It is highly likely that most people are going to use birth control incorrectly at some time with sustained use.

I think the point that was attempted above is that it's helpful to think of benefits as not coming from "the state" but rather from other working people. This is why people get upset about the longevity of some recipients.

I also do not understand why people get so worked up about healthy, untrained, long-term unemployed people who are required to do menial labor in return for their benefits. I really don't. There are huge numbers of the workforce engaged in menial labour. I do not agree with requiring any hours above and beyond minimum wage, but to say that job seekers should not be forced to pick up dog poo kind of begs the question: can we induce anyone to pick up dog poo, then? What does this say about street cleaners? Is not not something that every local government requires?

I am an IT manager and I have spent summers picking up dog poo.

Offred, how have you determined that most babies are unplanned?

Offred, I do not want to get pregnant. I have a coil, it was absolutely free on the NHS. I mean business when I say I do not want to get pregnant.

Those people are paid to do menial jobs at the moment but they wont be if those jobs can be done for free, meaning there will be more unemployed people. People who are not forced to work also retain some autonomy. As I've repeatedly explained many people have been dumped on JSA when they need support to work and these policies will affect anyone on JSA.

Please explain how it benefits the unemployed or society to force people to work for benefits?

If there is work, if that work is paid work just give people the jobs. Free labour undermines everyone's job security.

Suspect you might not be in favour of this if your job was threatened by this policy but they are never going to force the unemployed to do IT jobs for nothing.

If you read Crowler.

I said that a group i am in in my locality has just written a health equity audit for maternity services, that's how I know most babies are unplanned.

I'm sure you don't want a baby btw but I'm not sure you'd appreciate being blamed, called feckless and punished if your coil failed.

If my coil failed, to be honest, I would have an abortion. But the failure rates of various birth controls do not reconcile with your statement (most babies are unplanned).

Do you mean most babies are unplanned globally, or in the UK?

I'd support anyone to make that choice but it is a personal one and likely to be traumatic even if the best decision.

Unplanned babies are not only contraceptive failures (including imperfect use), they are also failure to use contraception which can be for a number of reasons.

In the UK although I'm sure also around the world also.

I meant to say I don't think abortion should ever be dictated by the state and that includes financial incentives/disincentives.

If most babies are unplanned because contraception fails, which in your mind is just what happens with sustained use, then you admit that a mistake has been made somewhere. Why do you seem to think its ok for other people to have to pay so much for the mistake that someone else made?

Don't you see that society is paying the price for all these mistakes? The reason we don't have enough unskilled and low skilled jobs is because there are just too many people!

Most babies are unplanned. It sounds like something from Jermey Kyle. Of course they aren't mostly unplanned. You are falling into the trap of making excuses for people who fail to use birth control properly

Offred, if your definition of "unplanned babies" includes people who are not using birth control but don't want a baby, then I don't even know what to say.

why is working for benefits more humiliating than being on benefits and not having to work for it?

This question from YouAre is interesting, and I'd like to see a few more answers to it from some of the many posters who oppose work placements for long term job seekers in any and every way, shape or form.

This answer

Because it equates most accurately to community service and it removes personal autonomy.

just doesn't come anywhere close to cutting it for me.

The community service I have seen in action is barely any different to things I have seen being done by groups of motivated parents in schools, or village community groups like the church, or walkers groups, or scouts/guides/youth groups. It's really not that bad. It's just community stuff. Stuff that needs doing because there are other people around, much like paying taxes.

Personal autonomy is not removed from a person just because of a few weeks work in a place they'd prefer not to be.

Isn't one of the problems with people having extra babies for benefits, the benefit structure?

I have one child I get £60 a week in CTC and £20 in CHB so £80 a week for the child, £9 more than the government gives me to live off. Then for each extra child I'd get £60 CTC + £13 CHB (I think) an extra £73 each week.

That's quite a generous amount to cover the extra food, clothes, and school expenses.

Additional children don't really increase the household bills much. Maybe a bit more electricity for the extra washing.

I am philosophically opposed to the child benefit, and have never claimed it.

I am tired of people who want something for nothing. I also think what is the issue about telling the long term unemployed to do some community work. I really don't understand offred's comments, what IS she talking about, maybe its another way to cover up people's inability to use birth control effectively if at all and to then blame the product itself as opposed to the way they were using it, not their fault etc etc - time and time again.......

BrokenSunglasses, I'd do something that equates to NMW as long as it didn't cost me anything in travel/childcare, or I had these costs reimbursed.

I think the issue is the type of work that could be done. I think it has to be something extra that isn't currently covered by NMW jobs.

Crowler, but most people do claim child benefit. The point is the government gives out more money than each extra child costs to keep.

Yes, non-sequitur. Sorry.

Oh, I see.:)

why is working for benefits more humiliating than being on benefits and not having to work for it?

Working for benefits means your labour doesn't even warrant the minimum wage as defined by law, and reminds you that you're utterly worthless to your country unless you're earning and paying taxes (which is easier said than done for two and a half million people at the moment). That's pretty humiliating, and also pretty dehumanising. Being on benefits but not working for them doesn't throw it in your face quite so much.

Working for benefits will also help to keep low wages low.

The type of work has to be 'add on' type community work, something that isn't currently paid for.

What has this got to do with eugenics? Contraception is completely different, thank god for it, otherwise you'd have to have baby after baby with your body never getting a break. It saves lives and improves the quality of life for countless children, by not having a large number of siblings.
I thought officially that half of babies were unplanned? And that a third of pregnancies end in abortion? So for many, it's the right choice and they haven't found it traumatic. What makes it traumatic IMO, is all the pro-life propaganda out there.
People can control their fertility really well, they just can't be fucked, using one form of contraception isn't careful enough, use two or three and you have an extremely minuscule chance of an unwanted pregnancy.

Morethanpotato - do you really believe that pregnant teenagers truly wanted a baby? So young? To give up their social lives? Opportunities? Teenagers don't even like tidying up- just imagine them with shitty nappies and covered in baby sick! LOL. It's far more likely that pregnant teens were feckless with contraception, and then brainwashed into keeping the baby by all this pro-life stuff, and influenced by friends/ family who've done the same and got the council flat/benefits.

Offred- as for hormonal contraception causing 'risks', pregnancy has far, far more! Just ask someone on here who had a traumatic birth, some people have PTSD from it, do you think any teen should have to go through that? Dispicable! Oh and abortion is ten times safer then birth and as for it being traumatic, well many women get PND anyway after giving birth, so swings and roundabouts ;)