to think the nations children are worth more than 1.90 an hour

[IceBeing]

Dear Tories,

The reason that there are 18-25 year olds out of work is not that young people don't want to work, it is that unemployment is at over 2 million.

You stuffed up the economy with your discredited austerity shit, now you want to employ our children at less than half minimum wage to make up for it?

AIBU to actually genuinely hate the PM?

[IceBeing]

charles to my surprise I agree with both your last two posts.

You said should people be paid who "contribute nothing to society". I think everyone contributes to society - it isn't exclusive to tax payers.

There are 30 million people in work and 2.2 million unemployed. So if each person in work paid an extra 10 quid a week in tax (and lets face it if I was in charge it would be people earning more than 40K paying 20 quid a week more and those under that not paying anything) then the government could pay the unemployed at minimum wage for their "community service".

What would I do with 20 quid less a week? Go out for 1 less meal every fortnight? Not buy a movie on amazon prime because I can't be arsed to work out how to operate the DVD player? Actually pay attention to what we buy in the weekly shop?

And the difference it could make to the self-esteem of a young person struggling to find work could be enormous.

So yes absolutely I Would pay more tax to support people who have never paid tax themselves. That's why Ill be voting green this year....the only actually socialist party going!

[pointythings]

I see two huge problems with this, having listened to Today this morning:

1. the Tory spokesman mentioned that 'they could cook meals for older people' as an example. Question: what happens to the jobs of the people who do that cooking now? Not rocket science is it?
   
   
2. I have not forgotten that it was the Tories who abolished the NMW and I firmly believe this is their way of doing the same thing again.
   
   If you want people to work for their benefits by all means - but pay them NMW so they either a) work fewer hours, leaving more time for actual job searching or b) get more benefit for taking up this work.
   
   Anything else is an erosion of the NMW to pave the way for taking it away from everyone.
   
   And yes, Labour are just as bad. This country needs PR so that some new blood can get a look in.

[CharlesRyder]

I would be happy to see 10hrs of community work or training be required for £65 a week as I think this would meet both aims. Young people would be required to adhere to some structure, would be out in society with working role models and would be getting minimum wage for their time.

[MuttersDarkly]

AugustRose - he can get a job teaching English abroad. Some will pay for him to do a basic teaching certificate too. Got to be better than the Tory offer.

Specifically the last part, I wouldn't bank on it.

-TEFLer of 26 years.

Frankly some of the LS franchises make a chain gang look attractive. They tend to be the primary employers of the inexperienced, just qualified (or unqualified) teachers.

Still worth a punt. Work your bollocks off for not a lot. Manage a steep learning curve. Deal with "magical thinking" expectations, like wanting you to get to and from distant parts of the city in five minutes flat. Drink copious amounts of cheap beer, fall over, still get up at 7 to teach unteachable businessmen who demand that you improve their speaking, while refusing to utter a single word. Or whine that they learned nothing on the course cos you are a rubbish teacher.... and can't see what the small matter of them only having turned up for three lessons out of twenty five has to do with that outcome. Have a blast on your day off and then start all over again with the boundless energy of the young....

I'll be encouraging my own son to give TEFL whirl for a year when the time comes. I think it can be character building and allows you to hone your "think on your feet" skills.

But an escape from "work for welfare"... meh, perhaps a bit too frying pan to fire for many.

[CharlesRyder]

Who have I called a scrounger? I am not suggesting for a minute young people, or anyone for that matter, choose to be unemployed.

I'm just questioning the kindness of people without work sitting at home. I suppose they could choose to go out and do voluntary work though.

I don't think the 'community work' should be allowed to be with businesses. Charity and local community work only. Jobs that would only ever be done by volunteers. In the Western Gazette the 'volunteer' column in the jobs section is as long as the employment section.

[EdithWeston]

What is Labour doing?

Promising apprenticeships to all. How will that be afforded? And will it displace older workers?

[IceBeing]

charles oh they contribute to society. Just not by doing make-work.....

One day they will pay your pension...best not to call them scroungers lest they turn the tables on you.

[JCDenton]

Isn't the point that they aren't actual jobs. They are things that it's nice to get done but just aren't a priority for the state to pay for. Like litter picking or being 'companionable' in a day centre.

So the employers involved will pinky-promise that they definitely wouldn't pay someone for it but they kind of do want it doing if it's going free?

If a job, however minor, is worth doing, it is worth the minimum wage. That's what the minimum wage is.

[CharlesRyder]

So, IceBeing you think that every single person over 18 in the country should qualify for 30hrs a week at minimum wage even if they contribute nothing to society?

And it should be funded from the wages of the people who do work.

I'm not sure I can square that in my mind.

[CharlesRyder]

Isn't the point that they aren't actual jobs. They are things that it's nice to get done but just aren't a priority for the state to pay for. Like litter picking or being 'companionable' in a day centre.

Do you think NEETs being left to languish is fine?

Or do you think that the state should pay minimum wage 30hrs a week to every school leaver? I'm not sure there would be the funds for this.

[IceBeing]

Oh and the solution is fucking obvious. Pay more tax and pay everyone a living wage, regardless of whether they are working or not.

We clearly don't need these 2 million people to be doing a job - so why stigmatise and vilify them for not doing it?

[IceBeing]

ptolemy said "How long do you think young people should be allowed to remain unemployed for?"

what do you mean "ALLOWED"?

what part of unemployment at over 2 million do you not understand?

How can a young person who cannot get a job because there are fundamentally not enough jobs to go around be considered to be being "allowed" to remain unemployed?

[Iggly]

Anyone not "a home".

I got ragey and didn't check my post first!

[andango]

AugustRose - he can get a job teaching English abroad. Some will pay for him to do a basic teaching certificate too. Got to be better than the Tory offer.

[JCDenton]

Exactly.

[Iggly]

A home would half a brain would see that this is just another way for business to get cheap labour, thus dropping wages for everyone else.

For fucks sake.

[JCDenton]

A lot of people in this thread are missing the crucial point that it's not a problem for people to work when they can, the problem is that if there is a job to be done, they should be paid a proper wage.

[AugustRose]

I read about this earlier today and it has me worrying. My oldest DC is 18 and hopes to go to university in September - we are on low income so he would get grants, etc all good - I thank whoever put that in place.

However, if he doesn't get in to uni his prospects are pretty poor because:
We live rurally
Most jobs here are seasonal and part-time and minimum wage
Our limited bus route has just been reduced further meaning you can't actually get to many jobs at the times needed (none before 8.30am or after 6.00pm)
We can't afford for him to learn to drive and he wouldn't have the money to run a car anyway

So he is left with leaving home and heading to a bigger town or city - except he won't be able to claim help with a housing while he gets established (assuming there is a job for him to get) because he is under 25.

Kids are already having to stay in education/training until 18 now but what is the point of that training can't get them a job, it's all well and good using apprenticeships but there are still not permanent full time jobs at the end.

I really hope he gets into uni.

[andango]

We as consumers need to lead by not using companies employing people for free and sacking the existing workers. We need the existing workers to join in John Lewis style cooperatives so we can employ them direct and cut out the capitalist middleman. This wouldn't be easy to do in all contexts but in many it would eg I don't get why Uber is thought to be so great - all it is is a web page/app. If I were a cabbie, I'd get together with other cabbies, pay a few hundred for a website and app of my own and undercut Uber - because I wasn't having to pay a company worth $40 for using its website. I'd advertise a lot locally, stressing the happy local cabbie angle.

Sorted.

[CharlesRyder]

Well, I think I see it differently to most on here.

If my DS ends up without a job I would want him to be given somewhere to go every day where he could do something useful, talk to people, have some structure to his life and not feel as though he had just been shelved.

I would hate to think of him wallowing in front of crap TV or an xbox all day feeling like he was neither use nor ornament.

I would also want this for myself if I couldn't find paid employment.

[Dawndonnaagain]

Treadsoftly they've already stated that they're stopping hb for under 25s.


There are many young people who wouldn't be able to do this, some due to disability, some due to other difficulties, unfortunately as ATOS frequently fuck up and seem to think that those with terminal illness are able to work, I can see this being a complete disaster.

[AllThePrettySeahorses]

Community service because they haven't got a jog in this dreadful economy.

Could I add?: Dear Tories - it's not illegal to be unemployed. You are not a criminal if you haven't got a job. And if you are made to undertake work for any reason other than reparation for the committal of a crime (the definition of a crime does not include unemployment), you are paid, at the very least, the minimum wage.

[cricketballs]

if its community rather than working for a private company then I am all for it - gets those with limited/no work experience something to put on their CV, ensures that they are not 'sitting on their backsides expecting the state to fund them' and gives them a purpose.

If its for a private company, then I would have an issue for the reasons stated above

[Madamecastafiore]

I think it's fab idea. Sadly it's s rehashing of one mooted by Labour years ago.

[TreadSoftlyOnMyDreams]

Hmm - £50 a week is a little misleading. I've just filled out the benefits calculator as a 20 yr old with no employment history [because I genuinely and very luckily have no clue about what benefits people are entitled to] and I'd get
£57.35 JSA per week
£15.65 council tax allowance
£91.52 housing allowance per week as a private tenant
So a total weekly benefit of £164.52. In London which would go far obviously.

Presumably you have to produce evidence of housing costs and a rent agreement before you get a housing allowance so £57 a week is not exactly pots of cash to be living on.

Interestingly, if you had 30 hrs a week at £5.13 per hr [min wage] you'd be £20 a week better off in total but your housing allowance is cut to £32 a week so if your employment is Zero hours then you are presumably a bit frickin' stuffed as a private tenant if the benefits system isn't responsive enough to a drop in your weekly income.

I imagine but have no idea really that the JSA is lower for under 25's as it assumes no kids or spouse to support.

Personally, while it might be great for the old mental health, I think that "community working" is just a Tory vote winner. Everyone likes to think that people on benefits who are genuinely capable of working are doing something for the money. Making that "something" into a worthwhile use of time and resources to measure and administer is something else entirely.

In an ideal world, I'd keep the housing benefit static for 6-12 months, and make the "community/state" work subsidised minimum wage but only in jobs that the employer can demonstrate add skills and training to the individual and require active management and oversight. "Employees" who simply turn up and make little effort can pick litter for no additional financial benefit.
That's my half baked thought process anyway and I accept its probably bollox. Something like the German system where you do 1 yrs military service, or 2 yrs Civil Service or stay in Uni until you are 25+ might be more workable. At least an autobahn/pothole scheme would train a generation in using heavy machinery and some basic civil engineering skills.