To ask for a view on this ? If someone gets benefits and are not a carer / single parent etc .. then they should contribute to society in order to receive benefits ?

[Ooola]

I think in society we should all support orhers.
The taxpayers contribute by paying taxes .
Vulnerable people such as disabled , carers etc should be supported by others .
Those who can’t find work and get benefits .. should be required to give something back for the money they get ...not be forced to work for a big co operation but to contribute . Things like park maintenance , listening services , support to the struggling public services . There could be matching service so that they could chose to gain experience or use the skills they have to benefit others .
Any police checks , as are required in other jobs , would be funded . Does this sound fair ? If we all give what we can then it may be of benefit to all , including the claimant who could use this to build c v , etc . Surely it’s win win in principle ? If someone gets benefits say at a level of 10 k , 13 k , 20 k
.. it feels fair that they give something for that especially as it is comparable to someone working and getting minimum wage ?
Clearly time would need to be given off for job interviews etc .

You mean a kind of socialist system where everyone has to work for government OP?

What an absolute pile of tank.

YABU. If there are jobs like park maintenance, then they should be formally employed to do them.

So basically, taking jobs that paid people could do, but for less than minimum wage. It depresses wages, removes NMW jobs from the pool and has a really nasty workhouse feel to it.

So no. I'd like to see more emphasis on education in the first place, support for apprenticeships, stop the shitty conditions many find themselves in... zero hours contracts and all that.

And how would you police whether the jobs were worthy and at what point it crossed over into slave labour for companies?

Either way - work should equal a minimum wage.

When I've claimed JSA I actually spent my time looking for a job and due to my work area practising for the interview process.

Oh and before I had my LO I also volunteered for various organisations. Now I can only fit in one. Why should I do enforced volunteer work because I was unemployed for 2-4 months?

I actually know lots of people who do volunteer work in their free time. No organisation wants enforced volunteers.

They did this already, it was called Workfare and it was shit.

The current benefits system allows for volunteering opportunities to help build skills and experience but they're not mandatory and I think that's fine. Forcing people to do unpaid work in exchange for benefits is wrong. If that job tidying the park or supporting public services exists for people doing forced labour then it should exist for people doing actual paid employment and should be offered to people as a real, paid job.

No, too much could go wrong and it would cost a fortune to administrate.

I do think after a period of day six months, they should become a loan and have to be paid back. It would make people think twice about using them rather than working. At least then the money would go back into the system to boost other areas.

No organisation wants enforced volunteers.

Nail on the head and a point I wished I’d made.

Going to work costs money.. transport, lunch, childcare. Who would pay this?

I didn’t say that they would be paid less than mimiun wage

• it could be part time - in affect they would therefore get more than minimum

Wage per hour paid via benefits

What would people who already have full time jobs have to do to earn the benefits they claim?

So those doing those jobs as employment are turfed out so that benefit claimants can do them to receive benefits. And the taxpayer funds another government department to oversee it all. 🤔

IceCreamAndCandyfloss

Wow. Punish the poor for being poor hey?
Locally to me a bog standard minimum wage administration job recieves upwards of 160 applicants.
You’re really going to push people further into debt and a situation they can’t get out of due to situations beyond their control?
And don’t say ‘move’. Moving is very expensive.

I think the cost of administering such a system would be more than just paying out the benefits tbh.

31 IceCreamAndCandyfloss.. do you mean after six months benefits should be a loan ??
!!

Ooola

So it would be a job?
Great - well advertise it and I’m sure people would apply.
But I’m not sure what makes it any different to advertising any role that people could apply for.

YABU. Do you know how hard raising a child alone can be. I mean I had to go to work. I had a mortgage. There was no question about it.
However I was very very fortunate. I had supportive parents. Without them I don’t know where I’d have been.
Also if you think people should work for their pittance. Why can’t they do these jobs for real and get a fair days pay.

If there are jobs available then why not employ people to do them at a living wage so they wouldn't need benefits?

I don't understand why you would give someone £20k in 'benefits' to be unemployed and do park maintenance rather than a £20k job doing park maintenance

I do think after a period of day six months, they should become a loan and have to be paid back. It would make people think twice about using them rather than working. At least then the money would go back into the system to boost other areas.

You do realise some people are actually unemployable, don't you? Family member has numerous health issues but was assessed as fit for work and moved onto JSA where she has been for the last five years because she is 59 and literally no one wants to employ a 59 year old ex-factory worker with multiple health problems. Why should she be in debt when she is unemployed and effectively unemployable?

You do realise that on UC a single adult claimant gets £288 per month which is just under £3000 a year,.
Where is your £10000-£20000 ?

Things like park maintenance , listening services , support to the struggling public services

If those are jobs that need doing then why not actually employ those people who are job hunting? You know, give them the actual job, with a legal rate of pay and a contract and employment laws to cover them.

Not many people in the scheme of things are on benefits doing nothing, with no MH issues, or in vulnerable groups or whatever. Your post perpetuates the 'lazy scroungers' myth beloved of the Daily Mail

• in effect

Stressedout10 The benefit cap is set at 20 k . People get paid it.

they should become a loan and have to be paid back

Yes. Maybe we could have a system where we pay a percentage of our income to cover stuff like benefits