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

Having worked in the past for (far more supportive and skills development centred) JSA employability schemes aimed at NEETs and also those who have very basic English language skills - I would say that this "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 job" is very very far from true, especially for the most vulnerable or unskilled. And if you are already living hand to mouth eking out your jsa and have time constraints then working pretty much full time for no extra pay is going to leave you even worse off than before and less able to compete for real work.

The people querying housing benefit. Need to go to bed. Too tired to type.

"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)"

The main problem with these schemes is that they substantially reduce the chance of claimants getting jobs. I was part of a team that undertook an evaluation of an old scheme along these lines in NIreland (gone a temporary blank on its name - it was years back under the John Major government). It was killed off despite in that case being quite popular (you got a tenner a week extra on your dole) because it was easily demonstrated that it made it much less likely that claimants would move into work.

There's various reasons why, but the two main ones are (a) it massively reduces the time available for job hunting because you're occupied during working hours when potential employers are available and (b) it acts as a signalling device for employers - if you're on a workfare type programme, you're obviously long term unemployed or otherwise 'undesirable'

To those saying volunteers should be paid NMW can I ask, who do you think should paying this? The company? We'll surely that would just be a temp job? The government? Where do you propose they take this money from?

As previously said, I think this scheme depends on the circumstances but proposing that NMW is paid for this scheme is just silly.

warmastoastperhaps the truth is that there are some people (due to mild SN or low attainment at school or just an all round general shit start to life) who will never be able to fully participate in the world of work and society just needs to accept that.

I think it's fair enough to do something (I don't think full time is fair when people are expected to apply for jobs and travel to interviews on top) when it's for voluntary/charity places. My niece did 3 (it might have been 6, but I think it was 3) months voluntary work trial at an out of school care place. Her reports throughout were glowing, but she didn't get the job in the end. Several months later when a full time member of staff left she was invited to apply and got that job. They had another person doing the work trial. That's not right. If it's a trial and the person is good they should get the job, it shouldn't be a stream of people as free labour for a big company.

Itsclif I think if the company need staff they should just hire them and pay them. The taxpayer shouldn't fund their wage bill

I am unemployed but not eligible for unemployment benefit. I would be glad to do 30 hours a week pottering around a charity shop in return for some money!

I do have issues with this scheme though, largely the use of volunteers instead of employing people, thereby reducing the jobs available to the unemployed!

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.

I agree. I don't want to go into too much details, but a company is struggling to find a PA/ Office Admin (market rate, full time flexible). Why? because a "local pest control firm" is not glamorous enough. No other reason.

Guys are refusing a decent job only because "it's too far". (1 hour commute....) give me strength.

Whist others are motivated, punctual, dynamic, do their research, and funnily enough get the job.

Tbh I don't think they should be paid min wage but I don't agree with the number of hours he is expected to do. The 10 hours or so a week are ample in my opinion to prove that he can be a good timekeeper and is not too lazy to work. Plus his previous work history of course.

It's not especially silly to pay nmw for "workfare" and has been done before with the futurejobsfund - which worked primarily with the public sector but also private as a kind of induction scheme to transition people on JSA into more permanent roles. The financial crisis and then tory gov gutting of the public sector and withdrawal of funds killed off the scheme but it was an interesting and far more humane approach which actually had a chance to draw people off benefits more permanently.

itscliffmas I don't expect extra money to be paid out to them, I just think the charity shop work should be less, 10-15 hours, so that the JSA works out as minimum wage. No extra funds needed.

I thought workfare was found to be illegal- a test case went through about 18 months ago now i think

I worked in an technical job in a factory type environment and they employed workfare people, there was no hope of getting a job as normally they would have employed short term agency staff at the rate of about £9 an hour (NMW and agency fee) but the bosses did actually say it was a way of getting free labour and it got some of more mundane work done. They did seem to be practically wetting themselves at the prospect of getting a load of work done for free.

It's not potterring around tj. Its bloody hard work for 2.40 per hour. 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. Plus ironing and sorting donations is hard work too.
And I am effectively unemployed but never received JSA either. I would have qualified for 6 months contribution based but was given incorrect informstion. Howevet, I don't have time to volunteer.

Anthonyblanche there are also many who may be able to advance and either able to acquire/ have skills and experience but find the lower end of the job market v v competitive. Equally there are many who may have extra vulnerabilities such as special needs but are not disadvantaged or disabled enough to be recognised as requiring disability benefits - is it ethical to push them into working nearly full time for a pittance if you think they have no realistic of finding paid work?

Missfit68 sums it up really well it's not just jsa its all the other benefits as well and to be made to do 'voluntary' work and not choose to contribute to the society you live in is the unreasonable behaviour.

Sounds ok, but with provisos - claimant should automatically be entitled to time off for job interviews and 30h should be the absolute maximum week. And of course, Tesco and Poundland and their ilk should not be benefiting from free labour.

Housing benefit is there to keep a roof over your head. It isn't money you can spend on food, clothes, transport, heating - little luxuries like that. So no, I don't think it should count towards the total. Unless you think unemployed people should live in some sort of workhouse.

The point I was trying to make warmastoast is that we as a society perhaps need to accept that not everyone is capable of fully participating in the world of work.

However, perhaps some of those are exactly the people who would benefit from volunteering with a charity? They would learn social as well as work skills.

If the state is keeping you and you are able bodied I think it is absolutely right that you have to give something back. A few hours a week of voluntary work doesn't seem like too much to give.

It is not the fact thst they are asked to do voluntary work which is the problem. It is the number of hours. If a person worked they could also receive housing benefit and the measly council tax reduction so I now agree that these benefits should not be counted.

He was already doing a few hours. 30 is not a few.

To those saying volunteers should be paid NMW can I ask, who do you think should paying this? The company? We'll surely that would just be a temp job? The government? Where do you propose they take this money from?

The person is already receiving £73.10 in JSA. In april min wage goes up to £7.something an hour. That would equate to 10 hours working if paying min wage for the voluntary role. 10 hours is sufficient for them to gain experience and skills,get into a work routine yet still have time for job seeking. The government arent out any more money than they were paying already, the charity gets the free staff, the person gains the 'valuable' experience and still searches for jobs. Who loses in this suggestion?

Able-bodied isn't the only thing. Plenty of people are able-bodied yet have MH issues or caring needs that mean they can't work (either temporarily or permanently). Please don't make the assumption that an able body means that you can work.

30 hours is only 6 hours a day, so the volunteer would have another 10 hours available (assuming 8 hours sleeping). It's part time hours so plenty of time left for job hunting.