Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think some job seekers should/could be earning their allowance?

71 replies

CiderLover · 01/07/2014 13:05

I have been unemployed in the past so I'm not hating on people claiming benefits.

I just think that it's a shame there are so many able bodied people out there doing nothing*.

Even if it were one day a week, litter picking, cleaning up our beaches, removing graffiti etc.

This way they could add voluntary work to their CV and help maintain their local area.

Isn't this an obvious suggestion?

*This may not be correct

OP posts:
DrCoconut · 01/07/2014 13:09

Or if there is all that work needs doing someone could be employed to do it and paid the going rate? I completely disagree that people with the misfortune to find themself out of work should be given community service for it. That's supposed to be for criminals!

Smelsa · 01/07/2014 13:10

If there's work to be done, pay them a wage.

CiderLover · 01/07/2014 13:10

Yes I guess you are right. Perhaps it could be voluntary though. When I was unemployed I spent a lot of time looking for volunteering positions but was never successful.

It can be soul destroying being at home all day

OP posts:
ILoveCoreyHaim · 01/07/2014 13:10

O sort of agree. When i was unemployed i was sent on various European social fund courses. The courses were very basic for some but others struggled. You could only go as fast as the slowest in the class so they were very boring. They would have been better if they were aimed at peoples needs iyswim. Some people hadn't used a pc but others had degrees etc. I spent so many times on these coursess and dont thinm i got much out of them. They also coat the JC £200 pw im childcare and £35 in busfares. I did do some vocational courses online funded by the jobcentre which were more useful.

I would much rather have fone on a work placement. The problem is courses i was on sometimes say 16 were booked to attend and only 7 people turned up so companies may be wary of signing up.

Inthedarkaboutfashion · 01/07/2014 13:11

I don't think they should be dong the type of work that the OP describes because I would rather see people being employed to do those tasks.
I do think that people claiming unemployment benefits should have to complete a minimum number of training hours every six months though (as long as a space on a suitable training course can be found) in order to ensure that they have up to date skills.

ILoveCoreyHaim · 01/07/2014 13:12

Oops ignore typos as on phone

WhereDoAllTheCalculatorsGo · 01/07/2014 13:12

People have jobs picking litter and cleaning grafitti, why should someone be expected to do it for nothing?

CiderLover · 01/07/2014 13:15

Yes I did my ECDL and Business Management course whilst unemployed. For an extra £10 a week I was working full time in the medical records department at a psychiatric hospital. This gave me something to pop on my cv and the confidence and drive to apply for more jobs

OP posts:
Smelsa · 01/07/2014 13:15

I always roll my eyes when people bleat about training courses. What type of training courses do people mean? Are all jobseekers illiterate and have no qualifications or up to date skills?

ILoveCoreyHaim · 01/07/2014 13:16

Even if it were one day a week, litter picking, cleaning up our beaches, removing graffiti etc.

I dont agree with the above, thats just insulting. Sound like punishment.

I would have happily went on a work placement based on my skills and the employment i was looking for. I dont see how picking litter would be of benefit to anyone looking for a job. Its a bit like the ESF courses which are of no use but coat money.

TillyTellTale · 01/07/2014 13:18

I expect being an involuntary volunteer would be pretty soul-destroying, too.

If people want to volunteer (and many do, and then sometimes have their benefits sanctioned for it! Yes, really.) they will do so on their own, and the organisation they apply to should have the right to say, "erm, thanks but no thanks"

LastTango · 01/07/2014 13:18

Ooooooh, you ARE taking your life in your hands, OP !! Anything like you suggest is absolutely hated on MN. (Whisper: don't even mention Workfare.)

ILoveCoreyHaim · 01/07/2014 13:22

Plus minimum wage jobs employees are now looking for people to be qualified. Cleaners need to be qualified, people working with food need to have their food safety certificate. I used to be a cleaner were the kids were small. By putting people looking for work into these positions it creates less paid jobs. Why pay someone when you can get them free through the jobcentre

ComposHat · 01/07/2014 13:22

How would litter picking equip any one with the skills for anything but litter picking? Not that there eill be any jobs working for street cleaners as they'll be laid off and their jobs taken by 'volunteers' from the dole.

TillyTellTale · 01/07/2014 13:24

LastTango

And rightly so. It is unfair to individuals, who have to meet the overheads of working on a benefit that provides a subsistence level income (it's "what the law says you need to live on" according to the letters from the DWP) and unfair to the paid workforce in private companies, who have their labour devalued and their jobs jeopardised, and unfair to charities and NGOs, who need to be able to turn down unsuitable volunteers.

KirjavaTheCat · 01/07/2014 13:27

So, workfare, then.

Which is basically modern-day slave labour.

If there's work to be done then pay someone to do it.

Thomyorke · 01/07/2014 13:29

There is the older generation who find themselves on job seekers who have worked 30 odd years, they should definitely not be picking up litter to keep them busy unless they are employed to do this or volunteer to.

Rubadubstylee · 01/07/2014 13:33

TillyTellTale

It is unfair to individuals, who have to meet the overheads of working on a benefit that provides a subsistence level income (it's "what the law says you need to live on" according to the letters from the DWP) and unfair to the paid workforce in private companies, who have their labour devalued and their jobs jeopardised, and unfair to charities and NGOs, who need to be able to turn down unsuitable volunteers.

In a nutshell.

ComposHat · 01/07/2014 13:34

Iveonder what the reaction would be if someone posted : its a shame there are so msny able bodied mums out there getting family allowance and tax credits not doing anything. Why not get them to paint fences and clear up litter once a week in exchange for their tax credits or look at all those pensioners sat there not doing anything from one day to the next, it would really help them to stay active if thet had to clean graffiti up once a week.
However there's this feeling that unlike any other benefit claimant the unemployed are at fault for being unemployed and they should be punished or made to feel shame.

goats · 01/07/2014 13:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alltoomuchrightnow · 01/07/2014 13:46

Agree fully with ComposHat
I'm fecked off enough about being on JSA and the humiliation I go through every two weeks at the job centre (am about to go now for another round of fun there). I'm fecked off at having to leave my job when i left DV.
I do voluntary work off my own back
Being forced would feel like punishment. And I would then expect all able-bodied claimants to do same… e.g. the able bodies mums getting tax credits

FraidyCat · 01/07/2014 13:47

One idea I had is that you could give employment credits to employers based on the taxes their payroll generates. It would sort of be a refund on part of the business tax, on condition they used it to employ more people. The size of the refund would fluctuate with the unemployment level so that the subsidy would disapppear as unemployment fell.

In effect you would subsidise employers to take on more workers than they otherwise would, with the cost coming from the savings in benefits payments. Effectively you would be paying the wages of would-be unemployed people with taxpayer money, but the jobs they would be doing would be decided by market forces rather than a politician, so the workers output would be better optimised.

ephemeralfairy · 01/07/2014 13:54

Not to mention the fact that jobseeking is incredibly time-consuming. Hawking CVs round, registering with agencies, filling in application forms, scouring umpteen recruitment websites etc etc, not to mention having to physically travel to the jobcentre to sign on.
I applied for a job recently that required a CV plus a 1000-word 'personal statement'. Took me most of the weekend to do it to a good standard.
I am not sure how anyone is meant to find time to sweep the streets as well..! Confused

ILoveCoreyHaim · 01/07/2014 14:03

Not to mention the fact that jobseeking is incredibly time-consuming

Yes i had to complete 42 actions per week to show i was seeking work and to be able to claim JSA. I would spend hours applying for jobs even jobs i knew i wouldn't get. I had to sign up to a certain amount of agencies and each fortnight was given another task to do.

I am back at work doing 16hrs and find it much easier than job hunting and trying to keep the job centre happy. Much less streasful working than jobhunting.

notallytuts · 01/07/2014 14:07

there should just be a few hours of work a week guaranteed for every uk citizen.

~ 10 hours a week work at min wage or thereabouts. then no need for JSA and those who are unable to gain any other employment are "earning" the money. job done