to think this is akin to slave labour.

[northernsoul78]

A friend on JSA is expected to do 30 hours mandatory (voluntary) work in a charity shop for 30 hours per week and apply for at least 10 jobs per week. It wouldn't be so bad if the voluntary work wouldbe likely to lead to a job but ofcourse it won't.
Aibu

Absolutely surly you put it much better than me.

Sigh ok I think I'm ready to give up about now. Mandatory 30 hours is not 'a few hours' voluntary contribution to society. If we as a society accept some people can't work then if we are concerned for their welfare forcing them to work for very little pay is not the gov generously allowing them a chance to socialise. It's depriving them of a right to disability support they should be entitled to but are refused under current criteria.

For me it's quite simple. There is either work that can be done or there is not; if there is work it should be paid. The very least work should pay is NMW and that is regardless of who is doing the work.

If a person's capabilities are such that they can volunteer in a shop (charity or otherwise) they should be paid for that work. If they are not capable of work and are therefore not working on these schemes then surely they are not meeting the basic requirement of the scheme - to work? If they are not capable of work then they should not be classed as job seekers because they cannot work.

I have volunteered for a charity for years but I do so freely. If I was required to do that work by conscription it would devalue what I was doing and render it not an act of charity but one of enforced labour.

oddsocks I was using able bodied as shorthand for no health issues, either mental or physical. Though some people with MH problems do benefit from having the structure that a job / volunteering brings.

Don't give up warmastoast.

My sister is not on workfare was outside fundraising for 4 1/2 hours the other day She couldn't even go inside to get a drink and no one offered to get her one. After four hours in a paid job people are entitled to a break! That is very wrong and I would be refusing to do it.

Yes, some do, it depends on the individual and, IME, how understanding the employer is willing to be.

Look, the bottom line as I see it is if there is work to do, then pay people to do it. No more JSA, no more workfare. If there isn't work to do, then what is the problem with people claiming JSA.

As for this fucking mish-mash of horseshited nonsense, I'll take it point by point:

1. There are jobs out there for people who really want to work. The jobs may not be what the person did before, or their dream job but there are jobs. For instance, There seems to be huge demand for office cleaners in many cities.

There are 730,000 jobs and 1.85 million unemployed people. So yes, technically, there are 'jobs out there' but even if all of those vacancies were filled, it would still leave 1.1 million people on the dole. The figure of 730,000 doesn't even account for natural churn which equates to approx 1m vacancies for the UK. As for office cleaners, yes that's fine if you only want to work 10 hours a week, and if you can get to the city centre under your own steam for a 5am start.

2. There is nothing wrong with expecting a single able bodied adult to volunteer for 30 hours a week and look for jobs in exchange for them being given money by the state. Doing voluntary work for a charity is not the same as being told to do workfare in tesco (which I agree is not on)

It's not really volunteering if it's mandatory though, is it? Unless the meaning of the word has changed since I last looked. And the work is not done 'in exchange' for money, because work done in exchange for money is called employment, and that means earning the minimum wage.

3. There are a significant minority of people who live on benefits who have no desire to get a job and who won't work if they can possibly avoid doing so.

I'd be interested to see the stats for that. I assume you have some?

1. I think there is no reason for an able bodied adult with no dependant children to be out of work for anything other than a short time. If there are no jobs in your immediate area you need to move to where the work is - seems to work well for Eastern Europeans.

Except that, as I said, there are 730,000 vacancies and 1.85 million JSA claimants. And don't forget that figure doesn't include people who are also looking for work but who are, for whatever reason, ineligible to claim JSA. Also, have you seen the jobs board on the job centre website. Pretty much everything is not only part-time zero hours contract work but also spurious 'self-employed' contracts ie where the employer doesn't even pay stamp or whatever - Bettaware selling, B2B selling on a commission only basis - all of that shady netherworld of so-called 'employment' that is little better than your average pyramid scheme and that will not support anyone.

mamma, but if she complains too much and gets sacked then she ends up working 30hrs a week for £73!

Bear in mind most people don't have the money to sue for unfair dismissal, and unless you've been in a job for more than two years you have no legal right to do so anyway.

So those 6 hours have to be say within the hours of 9 and 5.30pm. So 9 to 4 with a lunch. How the hell is someone with no computer or internet access use the remaining 10 hours to apply for jobs when they need to use the library which surprise surprise has similar opening hours to the charity shop. By the time they walk to the library it will be virtually closing. So they have one day at best. Yes of course they can fill out 10 decent job applications if there are even 10 suitable jobs out there.

Applauds Cruikshank for her excellent, well argued points and delightful rudeness

Hmm, it is the 'two years in employment' rule that needs sorting! That would reduce the unemployed, as people would not be so easy to sack!

Why? because a "local pest control firm" is not glamorous enough. No other reason.

how on earth can you know that? Are the people who arent applying for the job ringing you to tell you thats why?

Unfortunately she didn't know at the time she started the fundraising that she was unable to slip away. She was expecting cover but no one came. And yes next time they adk her to do it she will say no I would rather dtsy in the shop please.

From my point of view - all I expect of people on JSA is to do their best to get a job.

Making them work for no extra is just like the Victorian Workhouse where they had hand cranks for people to turn all day instead of work as the Victorians took the view that everyone must be pretending to do work, however valueless.

I cannot think of many cases where this would actually help the JSA claimant get a job - but I concede there may be a few edge cases - in most cases there are much more constructive things they could be doing.

If the Government DWP/whoever thinks people are taking the piss on JSA then they should deal with those people, not send them to work for nothing in shops.

Whats with the redefinition of the word voluntary Its not voluntary if its coerced.

Would love to see the vitriol vs support if some of you were told you had to do workfare for your Child BENEFIT or child tax credits.

And i bet if the OP was posting about a parent being forced to do it the answers on here would have been quite different.

There is either work that can be done or there is not; if there is work it should be paid.

Yes, exactly! It's almost Soviet, this insistence that everyone who doesn't have a job will be magicked up a job just because they should have one.

Sorry not clearly she is on jsa but having weekly meeting with advisor rather than having to do the 30 hours.

I guess the main question is whether or not the friend has any choice over what 'voluntary' work they do. If they HAVE to work in a particular shop and can't leave, then that is bonded labour.

If they can choose to apply for a selection of available roles and leave one for another as anyone would their normal paid employment then I think the comparison to slavery or bonded work is less robust.

Thank you SO much for your 22:30 post, cruik !

So much nonsense is blathered on threads like this, I lose the will to breathe never mind keep sourcing & re-posting stats. You're absolutely right. And so are the people saying "work done in exchange for money is employment; it needs to be paid at the usual rate."

Going back to job ads in Wetherspoon's, which I imagine was supposed to be some kind of sneering 'joke' - it's unlikely, since Wetherspoon's also gets its casual staff at taxpayers' expense.

Much of the regurgitated nonsense above does come from government sources, regrettably. Let me pre-empt some forthcoming posts by telling you all that, despite frequent requests, the government has been unable to show a single verification for its claim of X thousand "multi-generational workless" families. Only five such families have been found.

Did some of you miss the post where the OP said hes 62 and worked in the factory for 35 years. OP was he anything to do with the steel industry.

And i would be VERY interested to know if workfarers are covered by insurance while in a workplace e.g. public liability insurance , employers liability insurance etc.

Do some of you hear what you sound like? Seriously...people should work for nothing and be grateful because it is teaching them routine and how it feels to have a job??? JSA is fuck all..would some of you like to manage your household on that with the addition of applying for 10 jobs a week that are probably not remotely suited to, you working for nothing full time and trying to make your children's lives happy in spite of that. I genuinely think most of you live in fucking la la land and have no clue at all about being on your arse, trying your best and just not succeeding, despite not being being a stereotypical waster (of the Dave pig fucker, Jeremy Kyle ideology). You need to get your heads out your arses.

Agree with Garlick Great post cruik.

Look I've been thinking about this and actually I've got it all wrong. I am not entitled to any benefits at all including child benefit (it's ok though because I'm bloody loaded) and between dh and I we have paid an enormous wodge of tax. In fact we're probably bankrolling some of you on this very thread.

So I have decided that one of you who lives either in my town (or within an hour's travel time) and believes the ridiculous fallacies and false rhetoric but also claims tax credits or child benefit should have to look after my children for 30 hours a month in exchange for your £80 child benefit (I know some of you get more than that, but what can I say? I'm virtually a fucking philanthropist).

Decide amongst yourselves who and I'll see you at 5am a week tomorrow when I have an early meeting in the city.

Because there would be nothing unfair about that at all

Moving MN needs a like button so i can press it for your 22.56 post.