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)

OP - so in your last point you are clearly championing this idea saying ''The premise of workfare ie. Those who are able to work to put in hours for their benefits - is sound''.

So how do you answer the poster above who asks: And as for those of you on child benefit-you are a benefit claimant, so how do you feel about doing a couple of hours a week in a Tesco warehouse so that you actually deserve your child benefit?

The idea of working for your benefits is only fair if you have never paid tax or NI.

Xpost tired

Working for child benefit? that's a tricky one because its not an unemployment benefit.

You are also ignoring the fact that they have NO employment rights, so say someone has D and V, well they would have to drag themselves in, no matter what. Otherwise benefits will be sanctioned.

Proving that the government don't actually want to help people. They couldn't give a toss in fact.

I have worked a lot of jobs I was way over qualified for (factory work, shelf stacking etc etc). But a job is a job.

Now even these jobs are scarce. Unless you accept £71 a week to do them.

Op, YANBU. Couldn't agree more. Although I think it should only apply to those who have been claiming JSA for an extended period.

And if the Government doesn't want people to spend years being handed money then why are they destroying the job market and undermining the NMW?

I'm not proposing every benefit should be worked for. However benefits directly linked to working ie. unemployment benefits, full under the "rosy" interpretation of workfare

YANBU - socialism would suggest that we pull together because everyone has a role. In reality it means a large proportion of the population feel they've a right to sit on their arse.

Because while these people are on workfare the government is picking up the tab, and letting the CEO's run off with all the profits.

Oh dont get me wrong - the government are fuckers who don't give a dam about anything but linking their own pockets. I would never argue otherwise.
I'm simply championing the idea that unemployment benefit is not a right - the idea of a period of JSA without working seems fair.

Tiredmumno1

I had to take UNPAID sick leave when I started a new job, I wasn't entitled to company sick pay for 6 months. How is that any different! I didn't work, I didn't get paid. FAIR

Miranda sorry, but i'm afraid in your post at 14:24:45 you have lost all credibility with me. You sound like my 73 year old mother.

''I never had to have it so i don't see why they need it'' mentality.

I am not posting on here anymore.

As it goes to show some people just tar all people out of work with the same crap, that they are too lazy.

What a load of shite.

Good luck though OP in getting the government to listen to your proposals. Especially when they don't care about anyone but themselves and the rich.

In reality it means a large proportion of the population feel they've a right to sit on their arse.

What proportion would that be then?

The welfare bill is largely spent on pensions. Should pensioners work for their pension, even though they have already worked for it? The percentage of people claiming JSA is not a large proportion of anything.

Fall not full

Hope, sanctions can actually last up to 3 years, now that is unfair.

Damn not dam.

Christ, I'm appalling at typing today! Very sorry!

Your latest posts show that you think that people are unemployed because they aren't trying hard enough to find a job or because they don't want to work.

I'm simply championing the idea that unemployment benefit is not a right

Make NI contributions voluntary and then say that.

One last thing, surely you would have got SSP anyway?

Your latest posts show that you think that people are unemployed because they aren't trying hard enough to find a job or because they don't want to work.

No. I don't believe that to be the case - though it is certainly is true for some people.

I was unemployed earlier this year and it was the hardest I had ever found it to get a job, not at all through lack of trying.

But NI pays for other things to. If you calculate how much NI you've paid minus the other things you pay for it probably won't cover JSA for long.

I actually think NI should be voluntary but that that's a whole other thing

Tired, no. You only quality for SSP after a certain number of days off.

I agree about employee rights though, the government should "employ* people on Workfare.

Then I cannot understand why you think workfare of any kind is a good idea.

It might have been, pre 2008 when it was pretty straightforward to walk into a job. Back then, the career claimants would have been easier to spot.

But now? Two people could be out of work for a year, one might have applied for no jobs and the other might have applied for 500, and they are being lumped into the same boat.