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)

zower, did you actually read what I wrote?

Here, let me remind you:

"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."

I just don't understand the logic of putting people into workfare positions, that could be actual paid work? The economics might be a bit beyond me, but if Tesco needs staff, shouldn't they just bloody employ them? And then there would be jobs for people?

On the news this morning they were saying people would have to sign on every day, but surely if you've got to pay bus fair each way, you would be left with nothing at the end of the week? And same for doing community work, where does the childcare come from? It's just stupid rhetoric aimed at people who don't understand how people can be long term unemployed.

it is all stupid rhetoric and designed to demonise the poorest of society - cannot see it working tbh

I have 2 nephews & 1 niece, all under 23 years, who have 5 (nearly 6) babies between them.
They have never worked, have no intention of ever working & are more than happy to go on procreating, playing on the x-box, smoking & generally sitting around all day.
My husband & I work our wotsits off, day in, day out, always have done, we are not rich and still watch every penny. We have never ever had ANYTHING off the state, all we ever do us pay in.
It makes my blood boil.

Big businesses must be rubbing their hands with glee. Previously they got away with not paying a living wage as the taxpayer topped this up with WTC's. Now they can get labour for nothing. Marvellous.

I don't think it is right that someone can decide not to work year after year however the rich should not be able to profit out of this.

I think ConfusedPixie is right.

The local town here is near the top of the teen pregnancy ratings. And there is not an unemployment problem here.

A couple of factors: you are not abnormal if you have a baby at a very young age - if all your friends are having children, then it's understandable why you would follow suit.

Also, if you go to work in a minimum wage, probably not very exciting job, then your chances of moving out of home into your own place are... zero. Meanwhile those with children get the social housing. (And a considerable number of new homes have been built here recently.)

My in-laws are in care homes. Both care homes find it extremely hard to recruit. They have no choice but to employ foreign workers and, in fact, pensioners because no one else will even apply. I don't think we can deny that with the population explosion of the elderly that this area will inevitably be a huge employer and no one can be allowed to turn their noses up at this kind of work.

Workfare relies on the assumption that most people are lazy and just don't want a job or are claiming fraudulently while they make money working in the black economy. It assumes that many claimants will get a legitimate job, or stop claiming while they continue with their black market job, rather than continue claiming benefits if life is made uncomfortable for them.

Personally, I believe that most people would prefer to work in real jobs than claim benefits, and are claiming because they either can't get a job or because circumstances have conspired to prevent them from being able to work. But I'll accept there are a fair number of people - and we all know them - to whom the feckless scrounger description will apply.

But here's the point: Even if everyone on benefits was a lazy feckless scrounger, how would workfare solve the problem? It can't if you think about it logically.

Some people are going to be unemployable no matter how many sanctions they are threatened with. Whether it's a case of a long, criminal record, poor interpersonal skills, appalling punctuality, illiteracy - some of these people couldn't hold down any kind of job even if they were bullied into turning up for them. So what then?

Sanctions. It's all well and good saying that if people are not prepared to work they don't deserve any help, but think about what that means in practice. It means people with no money. No money means no roof and no food. Starving, homeless people have a bad habit of either begging or committing crime to meet their basic needs, or being so inconsiderate as to sleep in shop doorways or be found dead on park benches. Crime and social disorder increase - something that will affect all of us. Although committing crime is actually not a bad move for people in this situation, since at least in prison they'll have a warm, dry bed and a square meal three times a day. More than can be said for the unemployed.

You can judge a society by how it treats its unfortunates. I don't want to be part of a society where the feckless are treated worse than actual criminals.

And as for the majority of unemployment benefit claimants who are simply normal, hardworking people without a job, all this does is stigmatise and punish them while actively preventing them from following a path that could actually be more appropriate for them. It doesn't actually find them a real job.

There is also a forgotten group of unemployed, those like my parents that are too young to retire but too old/unwell to do the work that they have been doing all their lives.

My Dad at 59 is unable to bend his knees, he is an Electrician by trade but cannot physically do the work anymore, yet was declared fit enough to work and taken off disability benefit. He has had no help to retrain or reskill. He is now on a waiting list for double knee replacements so back on DLA till he has recovered from his op.

My Mum has a similar story to tell.

A few years ago they could have retired early and be receiving a pension by now. They both started working at 14, have never needed to make any claims in the 40 yrs that they worked. Yet they are made to feel like lazy, greedy scrounges.

I am sure that the 55+ age group must make up a huge section of the long term unemployed. I can't see workfare helping many of them!

Anyone could be made redundant or become unemployed through no fault of their own. Whilst working we pay National Insurance contributions which are payable as benefits until such time you manage to get back into work (not easy presently with so few jobs) So why, should someone work for those benefits for less than the minimum wage? - be careful what you wish for folks, it could be you one day, or your husband or child!. This is a degrading policy which assumes that ANYONE on benefits is undeserving of that money, which is obviously not true. It is the governments responsibility to ensure jobs are there for people to take, clearly, this is not happening presently as unemployment has risen dramatically, the jobs that are available are low paid, part-time and sometimes with no rights or conditions and security. We all deserve better than this. I think we should place the blame for high unemployment squarely where it belongs - with the government.

I can really see the rural unemployed being able to get to a job centre daily... just to find there are no jobs they could actually get to, or in fact no jobs at all, when they get there.

the whole thing is disgusting and I hope George Osborn's family firm goes down the pan faster than you can say fast.

betterthanever if you really beliive what they say about it being for the long term unemployed who have been unemployed for 3 years or more then you are incredibly naive.

intensity.

Add message | Report | Message poster
fluffyraggiesMon 30-Sep-13 13:32:52

About 20 posts late but i might be the 'lady talking about her daughter' mentioned up thread a bit.

To reiterate: DD was 18 two years ago and was sent to do sweeping in a stockroom after being on JSA for 3 weeks, having just finished her course in animal management. She'd only just received her certificates through the post from college!

Her aim was to find a job in a vet surgery and/or get some voluntary work in while to gain experience. But no - sweeping from 8 till 4, for 4 weeks was a much better apparently

It was Work Fare - not Work Experience. She didn't have a choice and was threatened with sanctions if she didn't accept the post. There was no actual public transport for two of the shifts the co. expected her to do (rural here), and they said if she 'refused' to do these shifts they would ring the JC, tell them she was refusing to work, and take a new work fare worker on instead. ie: not JSA for my DD for 3 weeks. DD queried this and her key worker at the JC kept saying in a passive agessive way ''Yeeees but you aaaare actually refusing work by not turning up for the shifts no? Hmmmm?'' :head tilt:

I had to drive her in in the end! Supposing i had no car, or was unwilling or unavailable?

Add message | Report | Message poster
DarkesteyesMon 30-Sep-13 13:51:23

And what about your petrol costs fluffy. Dh got me a copy of todays Daily Mirror They are also wanting the unemployed to cook for OAPs.

Quote from Mirrors Voice section
Dont senior citizens and others deserve the care of trained motivated staff instead of a a cheap press gang of the coerced unemployed?

Iain-

Don't you think it would lead to abuse if people were forced to become carers for the elderly though?

Liselise-

Some of us have been on JSA ourselves and still agree with it.

Myself, for example

The job centre really doesn't do enough to ensure people are genuinely seeking work, help them choose something realistic and suitable and allows people to be way too fussy......

How can someone on benefits look down on people in low paid jobs? It's ridiculous, because they ( the claimants) are the ones who ought to be ashamed.

Dahlen -

In most countries the unemployed get nothing and have to rely on friends/family/charity to survive.

So no, of course they are not being treated like criminals

Sugar when i see comments like yours it makes me really really hope that some of the guys who called me on the sex chatline were the husbands/partners of people like you.

After all you cant complain can you.....being as how it was keeping me off the dole!

Sugar you are a fucking hypocrite.
This is not most countries this is the UK
Whats with the race to the bottom.

As for the mum who had to take her daughter to the sex line place to work, what the hell is wrong with leaving an 11 year old at home? They're NOT babies, they are nearly in secondary school and ready for a lot more independence.
Many of us had jobs OURSELVES or caring responsibilities at 11!

Especially if the alternative to leaving her was taking her to a sex chatline place!

Were you forced to do the kind of work you do?

SugarMouse1 I'm guessing you are either very old, or were a child actor, because within my lifetime it's never been legal for 11 year olds to work in this country.

In most countries the unemployed get nothing and have to rely on friends/family/charity to survive.

Quite apart from the fact that comparing the UK with either the US, France or Zimbabwe doesn't work because the UK isn't any of those countries and has an entirely different socio-economic history, that's an argument that doesn't work.

I'm all for encouraging families and fostering community spirit so that people help each other. But if you want communities that work like that, you have to have policies that encourage social cohesion - which means not encouraging people to move away from the family support network in pursuit of work. Which means having a section of the community who perform valued but economically unpaid work (e.g. SAHPs - who also do a lot of volunteering BTW, carers, active retired who are still young and healthy enough to do that, etc). Which means encouraging the growth of stable communities through low population movement and outreach community projects. Instead, most Coalition policies are encouraging the direct opposite of that.

You can't have it both ways.

if someone has not found a job after 2 years:

1. I don't think they should work for Tesco etc. under workfare as it is likely that this will reduce the number of employed staff

2. I don't think they should work for a charity as the charity wont have the management resources to spend on a possibly unmotivated worker

3. going to the job centre for a morning checkin does sound sensible if it can be cheaply administered. however claimants travel cost will need to be paid for upfront. a travelcard to allow travel on public transport between home and the job centre could work.

however this time period should be reduced in times/areas of low unemployment. if you live in central London, 2 years is too long without working.

Sugar i hate to burst your bubble but i was signing on and on workfare Id already completed 3 months on workfare in a charity shop and at the local council.
THEN they wanted me to do 3 months in a soup factory for my JSA.
I saw the chatline job in the local paper went for interview and got offred the job which was actually PAYING A WAGE.
It was either that or workfare in the soup factory for JSA.

As for having a moan about my ex colleugue and her 11 year old daughter what the fuck do you think is going to happen with the kids of lone parents when they are forced into doing things with lack of back up childcare.
Youve just got the hump because my actual EXPERIENCES point out the flaws in your argument Oh and thanks for the #everydaywhorephobia by the way

It is illegal in this country to leave an 11 year old on their own.

darkest - so you worked 35 hours per week for 3 months for JSA then were offered another 35 hours per week for 3 months for JSA?

what was the scheme and what year was this in?