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)

I agree with working for your keep!

I don't think that anyone who finds themselves unemployed should have to do this for at least 6 months though.

Everyone, who is fit, after 6 months, should undertake some sort of community work, be it litter or offering to clear old people's front gardens. Why not?

Being choosy about what you decide in your life isn't my fault, if your really good IT job worked, you got made redundant and after 6 months,you haven't found another, then that's it, you have to look for something else and keep applying. In the meantime, you have to take part in clearing up the local area.

Not4 being unemployed is not a crime so why treat them like criminals Community service is for when a crime has been commited.

When people have nothing left to lose what do you think is going to happen. I can foresee a massive tragedy here

In fact if pushed beyond their limits until they snap.......
Whats to stop someone from deciding "Well ive done the community service.....now im going to commit the crime!

Just seen this on Twitter.

James KM Blake?@BlakeKM10m
Nazis forced every man aged between 18 and 25 to complete 6 months training at the Reich Labour Service, without wages

Something needs to be done. It's not right that unemployed people should be able to lie in bed all day while working people are up at the crack of dawn. You will find that workfare is more popular in areas with high unemployment as it is the people that see it first hand who are most sick of feckless wastrels. Those in leafy suburbs that don't experience it first hand are more sympathetic as it is just an ideal to them not a reality. The same as with mass immigration.

I agree with it for those who have been out of work for over a year.

I have 3 relatives that are all long term unemployed and do nothing to look for a job. One had a part time voluntary role in a charity shop but couldnt be bothered so has given it up

Lie in bed all day? Wastrels?

I don't live in a leafy suburb.

I still think workfare is a shit idea.

Lie in bed all day?
looks at the time
mmkay.

I don't think I know a single person who is claiming unemployment benefit and not wanting to get a job. The money they get on this benefit is so tiny they can't afford to heat and eat. They want to make things better for themselves.
I do know that there are those about who do not want to work though I just can't say I know of a single person, personally.

I wish the Gov would allow people to keep their benefits and go back to college to better their chances in the working world - that would be a good idea. I know you can't call it a looking for employment benefit if the person is in college full time as they are unable to look for employment but allow them to claim income support so they can have a shot at retraining? A shot at a better future. Just a bloody shot at it?

I know of one person who claims IS and lives with her partner who works full time and she is the reason every other person gets a bad name. Her answer to perhaps being caught out? Stop having mail coming to the house in his name. That makes me feel slightly cross but I would never go calling some hotline to grass her up. For all those like her there are millions not like her - let them keep their IS/claim IS and go back to college, that can not only re-train but improve confidence and social skills.

Herisson Sorry, what I meant was more that for those without kids it'd be easier to get them into work, so whilst we should do our best to get all job seekers into work, it would be beneficial to get those who can get voluntary work for a short period into that work, which would mean those without kids or those who have got family-based childcare in place and things like it. If there was a way to support those with children, such as work-based creches for free or something that would be great, but then I don't think I'd like my child to be put into a work-based creche out of force. So it's a difficult scenario.

I do understand to a certain extent how difficult getting things done with children is, I am a nanny, getting them to the shops for the weekly shop is difficult enough to have an appreciation

Not4Turning: RE being choosy. Sometimes there is no such thing as choosy, there are literally no jobs. I was trying to explain this to my landlady last night. She claimed that in Brighton (where I have ended up) there are no jobs. How I laughed!
We moved down here and had jobs within two weeks, would have been less had we not taken a week to relax! There are jobs here, a lot of them aren't nice, but they are there. Bar work isn't easy to find but phone-based work, leaflet dropping, temping, etc can be found very easily. Basic, min-wage jobs.

In my hometown (arse end of Essex) there are no jobs apart from care work, which frankly, should not be done by those who aren't interested in doing it because those who need care deserve better than that. When a new shop opens there are hundreds of applicants per position. It doesn't matter how qualified or unqualified you are, you are just as likely to not get a job as the next person. Having children to get a house and child-related benefits is seen as one of the few viable options in life because you don't have a hope of a job let alone a career. It is a real issue because the girls who end up in that situation young don't even think about how difficult having children is because they don't see it as a want it's a necessity.

I remember my career sessions at school where they spoke to us all about what we wanted to do. So many people said "What's the point? Our Mums/Dads have been trying to find work for our entire lives and all they get is shitty factory work for 15 hours a week." There was a real belief that we'd get looked after and at least have a roof over our heads if we had children, and then maybe support to get back into work when that child reached school age, because there is a lot more support for young Mum's down there to get them into work and training than there is for a job seeker without children.

Most of my female peers have children now, out of 100 or so girls in my year group, at least half of them had a child before turning 19 and now there are only about 10/15 of us who haven't got children (has been this way since we were 22). We're the ones who either left the area to find work or are being supported by Mum and Dad (maybe working for them) because they've come home from studying and discovered that nobody wants their degree unless they relocate and they can't afford to do that because they have no way of saving even pin money. For those who couldn't afford to relocate it meant 16 hour days and no money because it got sucked up by commuting and no life because they haven't got time, living to work essentially.

A lot of charity work involves dealing with vulnerable people. I really don't think it's a good idea to force the unemployed to work in those areas.

As for picking up litter and removing graffiti, the council employ people to do this. Should they be made redundant and replaced with free labour?

totem but what about those who are interested in it? I think a lot of people on jobseekers wouldn't mind to work a few hours in something that they enjoy and is relevant to them that will provide experience.

Yes, if people are interested then that's fine.

I've been looking at voluntary work. There is only one position available that doesn't have a hands on element of working with the vulnerable. I'm sympathetic and understanding etc, but I honestly don't have the right temperament to consider any of the other vacancies. And these are the sort of things that would be put forward for charity work in return for benefits.

Debs so why didn't you as a stables pay for someone to come in and work? Rather than demanding the poor slave for free so that the better off can do their hobby.

I think it's sometimes assumed that 'charity' will be willing and grateful to accept anyone who turns up to work. It's not like that. I work part time and have done quite a lot of voluntary work, but the voluntary jobs I have or have had in the past have required a lot of commitment and training.

I think if people already work in these type of voluntary positions when they become unemployed then they should be allowed to continue with that and have it count as their contribution in exchange for benefits, because it is already work experience that will look good on a CV. But I find it bizarre that charity, which already does more than it should have to for society, is going to be expected to pick up the pieces of the country's unemployment problems. A lot of charity work just isn't suitable for unqualified and unskilled people.

Minesapintoftea I didn't own the stables I took my dd for lessons. They never demanded people to come and muck out for nothing. I did it because I liked it. When I was paid to do it it was back breaking work 4 days a week for £95. Out of that I had to pay NI contributions myself and take out personal insurance.

These were not 'posh' places, yes horses cost a lot to feed and keep but we weren't rubbing shoulders with the Bentley driving hunters. These stables offered lowish cost lessons to a lot of young kids and also did a lot of work with young offenders and the disabled.

Again I would much rather work outside in the cold and rain doing something I genuinely enjoyed then stack shelves at poundland. Maybe the job advisors should take that into account when placing job seekers on workfare. They already know that Tesco and poundland won't offer them full time jobs so why not give them experience in a completely different field

Completely agree broken sunglasses

True Broken, but you will get people on JSA who are perfectly qualified for the charity role, or have relevant experience so would be perfect to fulfil that role. You have schemes which get people into customer facing roles in charities in order to gain experience of those kinds of roles under supervision of the shop manager (usually shop work but telephone work and office based too) so a similar scheme could exist for those on JSA if charities have a need for staff and a willingness to help train that person. Obviously I don't agree with just shoving people in for the sake of it like workfare but there could be ways to do it that benefit local charities and those seeking work who are interested.

Glad they paid you: that's what everyone who is working hard should get. Experience in muck-shovelling when the stables aren't paying for it to be done really isn't worthwhile to force jobseekers to do it.

And I didn't say you owned the stables: just that if the stables need people shovelling muck then everyone who benefited from them should pay a little more and then pay for a muck-shoveller's wages (and thus get someone off JSA). But if they could pay you then there must have been money to pay for it.

It's not going to benefit charities if they have to train and supervise people though, unless they already have volunteers or staff to do this or they are being paid to do it. Even then, it's a waste of time for the charity if the person doesn't stick around after they placement has ended.

Personally I think that is people have skills and expertise and the time to fulfil a voluntary role, they should be doing it anyway.

Community work seems much more suitable to me. I completely disagree with the PP that says it's treating people as if they were criminals. The community service people round here do some great work in local schools maintaining grounds at the weekends, as do the parents who want to help. No one complains that volunteer parents are being treated like criminals, and it's the same thing. Probation is for criminals. Community work is for the community.

Depends on the community work though. I could see it working theoretically, but no doubt you'll have local councils taking the piss and having people out scrubbing graffiti and replacing those who are paid to pick up litter. I certainly wouldn't have minded doing community work though would have minded if it was being forced to do the jobs they don't want to pay others to do.

Would have loved to do gardening and things though.

I may be wrong but from what I heard on the news this morning it would only apply to people who had been unemployed for 3 years or more? I think that makes a difference.
I see `who they work for' as two sided - I don't like the thought of specially chosen commercial companies gaining from free labour yet if all the jobs are community based which seemed to be being talked about by the politicians this morning, it does not give people the chance of being kept on afterwards.
One thing I did like about it but it should be being done now anyway - is helping people who are suffering mental health problems - it is a whole other subject but I feel the health services fails many with regards for this and their chances are gaining employment are reduced if they are a sufferer. The job centre etc. are not trained in this and people in need of help with this health issue are being forced into jobs or lose benefits.

I worry about the fairness issue, sure work for your money, but lets make sure it's not slavery, ie: time required should be based on a living wage hourly rate equivalent.

Very important it's not pointless job creation, people need to feel they have achieved something meaningful each day, important to use their skills to.

So those saying that workfare should include picking litter and cleaning peoples gardens etc. Would they do this if they were made redundant.
There is very little work out there and some are unemployed for ages.

unfortunately confused puxie`s logic ~ if you cant get a job its best to have children as the state will support you ~ is why workfare is a good idea. words fail me seeing this justification for starting a family - just shows how far welfare mentality has gone when this view is normal.