'The purpose of Welfare is to help people into work

[AnnieMaybe]

This is what David Cameron just said at the end of the BBC benefit programme

Does he not know what welfare is? Has he forgotten the ethos of where it has evolved from

In fact, carer agency using workfarers would be worst of all worlds.

And yet I've seen enthusiasm for the idea of making it mandatory for the unemployed to do workfare for the disabled.

No ta, mate. People only pass my threshold when I get have control of who's allowed.

I don't blame you Partial

Because not doing anything wasn't working at all? I'm not convinced that paying employers £3000 to have workfarers on placement is the best idea, but I've yet to hear a better one.

I'm yet to hear a better argument to justify paying it Fay. I'm not convinced neither.

What on earth are you talking about, fayrae?

Employment rates are caused by the economy. Economy improves => employers employ more people => unemployed become employed.

Improving the economy is what works.

There are other issues for individuals who have been out of work for a genuinely long time (ie not just 6 months). But workfare benefiting commercial companies, in the most severe recession for a century... Just bonkers.

Money needs to go into creating real employment (and not zero-hours contracts, either), not destroying it by gifting commercial companies a free workforce.

Interesting that people don't seem to consider that the museum Cait Reilly had been working in effectively received thousands of pounds of subsidy by her working there for a year free whilst receiving benefits.

Wrong assumption there, brd.

People do consider the museum effectively received subsidy.

But the museum is a public service, publicly funded anyway, not a profit-making company for whom free labour = bigger dividend payouts to owners.

And Cait Reilly gave her labour to the museum genuinely voluntarily, rather than through coercion or deception.

I'd far rather museums, galleries, charities of various sorts got the of the free labour. There is a public benefit to that.

The above institutions are used to providing quality, structured internships and voluntary placements too. Far more benefit all round.

brd no one has wrongly assumed anything of the sort. FWIW The Museum wasn't subsided IIRC. It wasn't registered with the Jobcentre and was something that Cait found for herself. Correct me if I'm wrong.

fideline how will placements in museums, galleries, charities etc help people get work experience leading to jobs? There really aren't that many jobs in those sectors, far more in warehouses, supermarkets etc.

The Museum didn't get a subsidy. It wasn't registered with the Jobcentre AFAIK. Sorry brd saw partial mentioned wrong assumptions not you but as for your comment like I said the Museum wasn't subsidised. Poundland was and is.

Plenty of customer service and administrative skills to be picked up in those sectors, fayrae, (not to mention soft skills) and, as I say, expertise in managing volnteers

The museum is subsidised in that it's getting a free worker who is supported by the state rather than by a private income.

But I don't understand all the fuss about the museum, people can volunteer in museums as much as they like, but if they also want to claim benefits, then they have to do what is required to make them eligible.

And another clear demonstration of people believing that 'long-term unemployed' people are subhuman. They can't be allowed to do work that might be interesting or even more beneficial to society than stacking shelves for a greedy, predatory, local-neighbourhood-wrecking supermarket. Because, no matter how intelligent, skilled, qualified or useful they might actually be, what they are supposed to learn from workfare placements is to eat shit. Workfare is about forcing people to grovel, to accept bullying, to obey a million silly, petty rules and never answer back. This is why workfare jobs don't offer any training or ways to progress; why they are the lowest-skilled, lowest-paid roles in an organisation. It's about forcing a substantial group of people into serfhood so there is a pool of free, demoralized, obedient, beaten labour that can be shunted around for the benefit of the corporations when they need extra bodies, and dumped when business slacks off

Workfare is about making people who are unemployable capable of getting a basic job.

The problem isn't workfare, it's that it's applied inappropriately to people who don't need it and won't benefit from it. People who are genuinely making a big effort to look for any job and who already have valuable skills are paying the price of those who make no effort and would otherwise languish on JSA and other benefits indefinitely.

woowoo the Museum is not being subsidised to the tune of 3k.

I'm confused woowoo re your private income comment. To which do you relate the private income to? Given that both the client and the contractor are both being subsidised by the Taxpayer.

By the Taxpayers...in workfare I mean.

I mean that many people who do voluntary work are already in paid employment, or they are pensioners, or they are supported by parents or a spouse, or they have income from investments. I meant anyone who isn't claiming benefits really.

So when someone volunteers for a museum, but they are living on benefits and have no income of their own, then they, and the organisation who is benefiting from their work, is being subsidised by the state.

The museum might not be getting the direct payment from the government for training and managing someone's work placement, but they are still benefitting from free labour that can only be afforded because of benefits.

I don't actually have a problem with that, as long as it can't be made into something that people would choose to do over paid work just because they prefer the job and can get enough to live on though JSA, HB, and CTC's.

"or they are pensioners... I meant anyone who isn't claiming benefits really."

Not all pensioners rely entirely on a state pension you know!

"They can't be allowed to do work that might be interesting or even more beneficial to society than stacking shelves for a greedy, predatory, local-neighbourhood-wrecking supermarket."

What utter rubbish. They can do any work they want. But after a year of being unemployed they have to accept the fact that they need to take the path of least resistance into getting a job, any job.

Supermarkets wreck local neighbourhoods? People choose to shop at supermarkets. Do you want to go back to the days of separate greengrocers, fishmongers etc? Where a) food was far more expensive, and b) food shopping far more time consuming, not to mention c) there was a far smaller range of food on offer. Supermarkets offered what people wanted and smaller shops failed to adapt. No different to what happened when smaller shops put their predecessors out of business. It's progress. You can't stop it.

I suppose it's difficult for some to grasp.

But during the time I've been too sick to work and actually needed carers, I have had pensioner friends and family help out with physical jobs round the house.

At least three of them have also been in receipt of pensions and still working, for cruise money or just to keep occupied.

So this notion of puir wee pensioners not being on benefits, while working-age me is benefit scrounging scum, leaves me laughing wryly.