Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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 ?

386 replies

Ooola · 11/11/2019 21:23

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 .

OP posts:
ViciousJackdaw · 11/11/2019 23:47

What a load of goady old bollocks. I suspect the 42% do not have the courage of their convictions. They also read the Daily Mail or perhaps even the s*n (does not deserve capitals), have a dreadful 'I'm alright Jack' attitude and cannot see past their snotty, upturned noses to realise that many, many people (perhaps even themselves) are merely a redundancy or an illness away from the foodbank.

Tippyhippy · 11/11/2019 23:47

Today 23:44 Pardonwhat

In my former profession , that was exactly how university students on placement learned from qualified staff . Observation , able to ask questions , build knowledge . Yes , it did slow our work down , it was , however , both challenging and rewarding .

Pardonwhat · 11/11/2019 23:49

Tippyhippy

Yes In a job that they’re training for.
For specific qualification.
I’ve been that university student.

Unemployed people following people around at a job they’re not going to qualify in or ‘learn on the job of’ is pointless.

Sleepyblueocean · 11/11/2019 23:49

Was that when you were a benefits investigator?

Tippyhippy · 11/11/2019 23:50

Sleepyblueocean
Because I felt I was starting to discuss my former profession and did not want to much more in case it outed me .
I am tired and forgot .

Tippyhippy · 11/11/2019 23:51

Sleepyblueocean
No . I am talking about a much more niche job than that .

Justmuddlingalong · 11/11/2019 23:55

I doubt you'll out yourself. Your 1st goady post and you've name changed half way through. Interesting...

mumwon · 11/11/2019 23:57

they are required to look for work & do training & the money they are (under) paid is below subsistence level - if you want them to work/volunteer than they need to be paid - why should anyone be forced to & the figure your referring to is for families not individuals & includes child benefit & housing benefit etc - your empathy level is only out weighed by your ignorance of how poor people are who are on Universal Credit. Especially single people.

Topothehill · 11/11/2019 23:58

Justmuddlingalong
It just struck me that my career path might out me . Especially as I have chosen to go from that to nmw at a certain time in life .

Nodnol · 12/11/2019 00:00

It’s called “work for the dole” here in Australia and has been a colossal failure for many of the reasons outlined above. Hasn’t stopped our government from implementing even more draconian measures though. The latest is welfare cards which limit where you can spend the money and don’t allow you to buy certain goods.

I imagine workhouses are coming soon.

ffswhatnext · 12/11/2019 00:04

So you want those on benefits to have a choice if they do something for the community?
That they should be giving back in return for their benefits?
They can get involved in park maintenance, befriend someone, clean graffiti whatever. Doesn't matter. But they have a choice and this would be suited to them?

I just want to try and understand the actual basics of what you are proposing.

VenusTiger · 12/11/2019 00:16

You want to give people on benefits a job and not pay them? Say what?

AlunWynsKnee · 12/11/2019 00:18

don’t know much about the system . That is true
So true...

Goodnightseamer · 12/11/2019 00:20

I've managed volunteers before. Like fuck would I want to manage volunteers who don't want to be there. Just what use would that be to anyone?

ilovesooty · 12/11/2019 00:22

The trouble is that a narrative of benefit scroungers is fed and accepted in this country. The OP simply reinforces it.

Goodnightseamer · 12/11/2019 00:25

Well obviously being on the dole is a right old laugh which is why we're all doing it.

Except we're not. Could it really be that actually it's not a cushty number at all?

Retpark101 · 12/11/2019 00:36

There’s been some excellent points made here by some posters, really good points.
However OP seems to ignore the difficult questions and reply in a jumbled mish mash of words and commas.

I don’t think you’re understanding what people are saying OP, you’re concept wouldn’t work.

It’s so frustrating when people rant about people on UC instead of the actual bad guys, like the majority of employers paying minimum wage (as well as the fact minimum wage is so low) there not being enough jobs out there (staff are now stretched to do the job of 3/4 workers, or are replaced entirely by automated systems)
Mamas and papas, mothercare and Thomas Cook have all closed down recently, the poor employees will more than likely have to apply for benefits. Would these people be then forced into a “halls of residence” to give them “incentive” (despite the fact they lost their jobs through no fault of their own) should they be made to get a “voluntary” job which is actually just a regular job, but with even lower pay?

Retpark101 · 12/11/2019 00:40

Your*
My pet hate and I’ve just done it myself!
I blame my 10 month old for keeping me up past midnight

Beveren · 12/11/2019 00:50

Am saying if there is work to be done in the community Such as neglected land , isolated elderly . These things could be met . The benefits are being paid anyway so why not get communal Benefit from that money?

Why shouldn't that work be done by people who are properly paid to do it? That would have the further advantage of taking people off benefits long term, after all.

But what if they wanted to do it ? I did say that no one should be forced , but that they should have a choice / be matched to interest or skill set?

No-one's stopping people from volunteering for care work etc if they want to do it.

WiddlinDiddlin · 12/11/2019 02:16

Actually last time I was on 'out of work' benefits, I had my benefits STOPPED because I was using some of my spare time to volunteer (in things that gave me further skills and better employment opportunities in the long term!).

Having to work for your money is called... employment.

Working for less than min. wage in an unsecured role you can lose at any second... that's more like slavery.

Graphista · 12/11/2019 02:52

YABVU and I’m pretty sure you know it!

“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”

1 those are jobs, if they are working they should be getting paid at least nmw

2 if you had benefits recipients doing work like this you’re merely making the person that normally does that job unemployed or taking hours away from them so simply shifting the problem elsewhere

3 HUGE problems if you’re suggesting unqualified/untrained people take on such work especially things like “listening services” whatever they might be, though I’m assuming it would involve listening to vulnerable people, could do far more harm than good.

4 why should the poor unemployed be punished for the lack of paid work which isn’t within their power to change? Even according to this govts own stats the number of people claiming benefits purely on the basis of being unemployed far outnumber the number of vacancies available - and that’s ALL vacancies not just full time ones, but even just a few hours a week.

5 under the current system they are basically expected to treat job hunting as a full time job anyway. They’re not sat doing nothing! Do you have any idea the amount of time it takes to search for and apply for jobs and go to interviews? If you’re to have any chance of success?

6 who’s going to cover their costs of doing this? Transport, the right clothes and shoes, safety equipment etc?

Op have you EVER been on benefits? If so when and for how long?

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

Ahem

“Those who can’t find work and get benefits .. should be required to give something back for the money they get” which is less than nmw!

“Weird and impractical combination of socialist job creation and Thatcherite heartlessness.” Yep!

“The reality is though they send people to do shelf stacking in Tesco doing others out of a paid job, and helping no one but big business. It makes me furious” exactly! There was a scheme that did this and supposedly if the person doing the job did it well they were supposed to get the chance to do the job permanently and be contracted and get employee rights etc, but the companies taking advantage of it would bump them saying they no longer had a business need, not fill the role for however many months in order to “prove” that then apply and get another free employee!

“as you obviously took my comment on the other thread and just ran... And came up with this bulshit.” Interesting, which other thread?

“Many skilled and able people are unemployed” and why shouldn’t them using those skills be suitably rewarded? Why should they receive less than the market rate? Let alone less than nmw? For using those skills?

“I am not a policy maker and admit I do not understand the technical application of a view I hold .” You don’t have to be, basic common sense, compassion and empathy should tell you what a fucking disgraceful and punitive idea this is.

As for the fucking workhouse idea - I barely have words! What the HELL is happening to this country that people think these suggestions are REMOTELY acceptable even to ponder?!!

“Should the older residents be gotten rid of somehow...?” Shades of “animal farm” and poor boxer come to mind!

“Victorian workhouses were awful and one way traps. I'm not proposing rat infested dormitories next to a laundry. It's more giving goods and services rather than cash - and could resemble student halls family accommodation.” You think when the workhouses were first proposed they were presented as barely habitable slums?! Of course not! They were presented as a frugal but utilitarian way of addressing poverty and unemployment, mainly by making the poor seem akin to criminals and workhouses had very similar designs to prisons. They were intended to be unattractive certainly but not deliberately uninhabitable.

“Building the houses would get a lot of people back into work for a start.” Something I and others have said many times. A good social housing building/renovation programme would do great things for our country, provide jobs and training, provide affordable housing, provide housing security (which we KNOW has effects like reducing crime and improving children’s educational achievements), improves communities generally, reduce housing prices ... and therein is WHY those with the power to do this DON’T, there is a shocking number of politicians at all levels and of all party colours who are landlords/property developers and oh what a surprise - they always vote against ANY policies that would lead to lower housing prices - imo its a conflict of interest that should be banned.

If there is work that needs done it should be done by employees NOT people effectively enslaved to do the work!

Greatnorthwoods · 12/11/2019 03:05

Op a alternate way of implementing your idea would be to scrap benefit eligibility, and instead would be benefit claimants would be issued a job, such as park maintenance or similar, on a take it or leave it but that’s the only offer deal.

CaptainCautious · 12/11/2019 03:07

YABVU

sashh · 12/11/2019 03:44

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

Well if you have 4 children with special needs maybe. And you do realise that cap is for a family?

Screwtheclockchange · 12/11/2019 04:08

Anyone else thinks it's weird that they announce an election and, the next thing, a load of goady threads about benefits claimants pop up on here? Hmm

Swipe left for the next trending thread