To ask what you think about ‘work for dole’ idea?

[WakeUpAndBe]

Is it reasonable or unreasonable?

Pros: on the surface it sounds reasonable. Means the public won’t view it as “free money” if people are working 30 hours a week for a lot less than the national living wage.

Cons: risks of exploitation and returning to Charles Dickens’ style workhouses for the poor.

Chris Philp said UC claimants should be forced to ‘work for dole’

“In his paper, Philp suggested those claiming universal credit should, after a certain time, have to work for their benefits if they were employed for less than 30 hours a week. He suggested those claiming benefits for a disability should be given work that they were physically able to do.
^^
“Philp said they could be asked to complete community work such as cleaning graffiti or clearing parks, charity work, supervised job searching or recognised training to top up their hours to 30 a week. He said a referral to the “work for the dole” scheme would be triggered between three months and two years after first claiming depending on previous national insurance contributions.
^^
“If anyone is not compliant with work for the dole activity requirements, they should automatically have all their universal credit payments suspended as long as the person is not working for the dole,” he wrote at the time. “Although the complete suspension of universal credit benefit payments may seem an extreme sanction, the evidence from the US suggests that this is required to make the scheme fully effective.”

Number crunching

The National Living Wage is currently £9.50 x 30 hours x 4 weeks = £1,140 for 4 weeks

According to the website, monthly UC is £265.31 for single and under 25,
£334.91 for single over 25,
£416.45 for couples under 25
and
£525.72 for couples over 25.

Third post in said it all. EXACTLY THIS. ^

If the work is there, then fucking PAY THEM AN ACTUAL PROPER WAGE FOR IT!!!

Awful idea. If people are working they should be paid properly for the work they are doing. By all means, tell them to take this paid job or lose benefits (assuming they have no genuine reason to not be working) but you cannot justify making people work for less than minimum wage. Even that is draconian though. I think people vastly overestimate the number of people claiming benefits as a lifestyle choice.

I havent read the full thread but from memory didnt this get attempted some years ago and the companies that engaged with the plans got slaughtered by their customers and withdrew from the scheme

If there are extra hours to give workers then give them. Too many people are on zero hour contracts and cant make plans financially or for child care which means that they cant work to their full potential

We dont have a high unemployment rate in this country but we do have people that want more hours and want more predictability to their work but cant get it

It is a problem if people are deliberately reducing their hours to take advantage of higher benefit income but then if the infrastructure was there for them such as child care, after school clubs, proper public transport that is affordable and accessible then it would be easier to evidence.

They will just lay off the ones working there after six months
It's bound to happen :(

Octomore

The whole point of transfer pricing is you cant play fast and loose with it, given that pretty much every single country requires you to transact on arms length terms, and to document and evidence that. Its a huge area of focus for tax authorities and actually the bigger the corporate, the more scrutiny they face

Add in OECD pillar 2 and its pretty hard to evade away your CT bill.

Can you name many well known corporate groups with an ETR below 15%?

Even the likes of google, amazon are around this and as digital service providers they are perfectly entitled to locate themselves where they wish, as long as the work is actually happening there.

Don't blame the corporates. Blame the rules. Most of what the general population believes to be tax evasion is normal application of government promoted reliefs and incentives, which a corporate is essentially required to avail themselves of as they have a duty to maximise shareholder value.

I don’t think encouraging some work based activity whilst you are claiming UC is such a terrible idea. 5-10 hours a week of proper, genuine work experience designed to upskill someone, grow their connections etc could be invaluable.

I think the proposals are horrible though. 30 hours of doing work that amounts to cleaning, litter picking etc is not work experience. If someone is deemed good enough to do 30 hours work experience then they should get NMW as a minimum.

This happens in Australian now. The Liberal party brought it back.

Just read up on this and it's from nine years ago. Recycled news it's all been done and dusted.

@MrsSkylerWhite If there's 30 hours of work to do then pay someone to do it. As in a real wage“
this.

If people are doing a real job, they get the going rate.

how long before unscrupulous employers start laying people off and adopting effectively slave labour?

That's exactly what happened all down the East Coast when employers started using cheap European Labour to work for them in agriculture.

Local people got pushed out of jobs and replaced by foreign workers.

This why there was such a huge 'Leave' vote in the Referendum from the east side of UK.

Chris Philip was appointed Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 6 September 2022.

Thats the same guy behind the report in the OP.

"He suggested those claiming benefits for a disability should be given work that they were physically able to do."

I wonder what he thinks my profoundly autistic son with a learning disability will be able to do. Nob with no idea.

Do they mean PIP? Loads of people who get PIP already work. Those that don't usually can't work as they need a carer.

The vast majority of people who are unemployed long term and full unemployed without working at all, are virtually unemployable. And they are not costing the tax payer as much as tax fraud and the governments shit show anyway

I mean, to be fair to them, if they use the same companies to decide that did the PIP medicals Theban lot of people will be suddenly cured and capable of so much…

Those companies were almost miracle workers with the number of very sick or disabled people that were “absolutely fine” after a visit with them…

Might do that with my youngest - take her to Atos or Capita instead of hospitals.

They can find work for the schizophrenic relative I support. His illness is challenging to control and he often has strange ideas. They can deal with him thinking managers are plotting against him, he is being filmed, etc. It is hard work getting him to eat etc, I would love to see someone trying to get him to work. He would simply disrupt everyone who is working. But they can try if they want.

In fact, if this goes ahead I think all carers should turn up with the adults they care for and say go ahead and leave them there. It would be a fucking disaster.

I used to volunteer for a charity that helped many people like this. Most struggled to look after themselves at a basic level. I would not have employed them. They tended to have either alcohol or drug issues or fairly obvious mental health issues but with no one to support them through being recognised as having this. Very poor hygiene was common as were difficult personalities that could not deal with even mild conflict. Most could not even get a volunteer role.

I think a modified version of this, which is fairer and less open to exploitation could work. But it would involve giving those that work in the jobcentre more flexibility, and I can't see that happening. What I'd do:

• if someone is assessed as able to work - from a health perspective, family circumstances, practically etc, then the scheme would apply. If not, then they get their benefits anyway. There would be clear criteria, but also since discretion to go beyond this.

So, say those with parental responsibility for a child under 5 - excluded (and yes this is a get out for a lot of weekend dads). Those claiming disability benefits or with a child that does (irrespective of whether legally they are a carer). Discretion to exclude where they live rurally and have no transport, other caring responsibilities etc. But clear criteria to show areas of discretion.

• a simple and prompt appeals process
• if it gets to tribunal and it's is decided they should have been excluded, the DwP gets fined, to ensure they actually give it proper thought-

- that that take it to tribunal will continue to get their benefits paid in the meantime unless the tribunal orders otherwise (ie where they have absolutely no grouds). They do not have to pay the benefits back if they lose. They cant repeatedly go back to the tribunal though, which is why they need the option to make them pay it back if they are clearly being vexatious..

-if in the scheme, a person is required to do a small number of hours volunteering or working for social good - they can choose where, when etc, and something low like 5 hours a week or less. This will mean it's more than they'd get at minimum wage, and would allow a lot of time for job hunting. But it would potentially give them skills, or something to put on their cv.

• the assessors are required to take a broad approach to 'volunteering and social good'. It would include helping out with reading at school, being on the PTA committee, joining a scheme to visit the elderly in hospital, as well as more formal volunteering roles.

The problem is, my system would cost more to administer than the benefit in terms of community good 🤣

@WakeUpAndBe but this is all from a decade ago, has he mentioned starting it up again since he was appointed?

I generally sit more to the right than the average mumsnetter, but this is an appalling idea. There are either jobs to be done and roles to be filled or there aren’t. People on benefits should never be used as free or cheap labour for the government or anyone else.

@Babyboomtastic It is not volunteering if you have ni choice. You mean unpaid work.
And I meant what I said. If charities start taking part in something like this I will build a website with every charity featured that does and ask people not to support those charities.
Most charities depend on donors and reputation.

@WakeUpAndBe Nobody needs a fucking reference these days we don’t take them because they’re not worth the paper they’re written on . At absolute best you would get HR confirmation email that will confirm the dates between which they were employed and that is your lot.

I really do wish they had a like button on Mumsnet.

I'm fairly sure the Eastern Europeans took the jobs the locals didn't want. That's why, without them, there have been issues finding enough people to bring in the harvest.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60999236

The Eastern Europeans lived in dormitory-style accommodation for seasonal work and travelled around doing it. I know someone who used to do this work when a teenager. It pays well but is impossible for anyone with a family or anyone older. You need to be young and fit and happy to live in shit conditions so you earn good money you can have fun with when not working.

Except as older women we mostly didn't get that choice. Part timers couldn't join company schemes and women weren't encouraged to consider their older age - you were supposed to rely on a husband.

Thank goodness that has changed, but many women are still suffering from these attitudes and practicalities.