My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

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

518 replies

WakeUpAndBe · 04/10/2022 10:24

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.

OP posts:
Report

Am I being unreasonable?

576 votes. Final results.

POLL
You are being unreasonable
72%
You are NOT being unreasonable
28%
antelopevalley · 06/10/2022 12:45

Thatboymum · 06/10/2022 12:37

People who can and choose not to work should after a set amount of time be cut back and made to find work.
single parents / low earning households doing as many hours as is possible to them or ultimately no Hours if they really can’t I’m happy to be supported fully.
Disabled and carers again if they can do something absolutley if they can’t shouldn’t be punished for it and again I think deserve full support.

This is what already happens!

Report
WakeUpAndBe · 06/10/2022 12:55

KettrickenSmiled · 06/10/2022 12:44

Most people on what you term the "dole" are already working @WakeUpAndBe .

I didn’t term it. I referenced the term as in the OP article.

OP posts:
Report
Thatboymum · 06/10/2022 12:57

antelopevalley · 06/10/2022 12:45

This is what already happens!

I didn’t say it wasn’t I was simply expressing my views of the situation. The most vulnerable should be protected and supported and the capable but lazy should be cut off after a period of time. It shouldn’t be a lifestyle choice for the capable but unwilling

Report
JulieMarooley · 06/10/2022 13:44

Octomore · 06/10/2022 11:35

If there is school time only work that needs doing, the relevant employers should advertise those jobs for a fair wage and people will apply.

Not sure I agree that the work would need to be commercially viable in order for it to be worth doing this scheme.

The taxpayer does not expect to make a profit or break even, from paying out benefits.

Agree it should be minimum wage though (although if their current benefits are more than full time min wage, not sure how that would work)

Report
antelopevalley · 06/10/2022 13:47

Not commercially viable means charitable. No charity worth their salt would participate in this.

Report
Notjustanymum · 06/10/2022 14:01

No, no, no, no, no!

This would result in employers getting the idea that they can pay people less than minimum wages and will drive already low rates of pay lower, as they let those people go in favour of non-employees doing the work for their benefits…

National Minimum Wage has already partially achieved this, which is why there is a lot of sympathy for the Rail Strikes, as Mick Lynch has admirably explained the reasons behind these is because wages haven’t kept up with prices…

If real wages had kept up with inflation and house prices, an equivalent 1987 salary of £10,500 would now be just under £70,000, when in fact it’s just over £50,000 due to “Austerity” and the introduction of the Minimum Wage…

Report
JulieMarooley · 06/10/2022 14:01

antelopevalley · 06/10/2022 13:47

Not commercially viable means charitable. No charity worth their salt would participate in this.

I think we are talking at crossed purposes, I was proposing the civil service/government would be the employer (they are paying out already anyway, the only difference is they’d get some work in return), appreciate this is slightly off track from the link.

Report
antelopevalley · 06/10/2022 14:22

So why not just pay them? Or are you saying council job cuts at the moment should be replaced by people on benefits working for their benefits?

Report
OneTC · 06/10/2022 14:43

What we reckon the venn diagram looks like for "reducing economic migration helps the poorest in society by stimulating wages" VS "let's pit the poorest in society against free labour"

Report
Onlyforcake · 06/10/2022 14:48

I take it we've ignored the obvious issues here?

Huge chunk of benefits is pension.
Another massive chunk goes to people who ALREADY WORK. Both of those groups you want to make them do 30 hours?

It IS just a way of getting the very low % of healthy young people to work for low wages. So yes, it is just a workhouse ideal. Con is it?

Report
antelopevalley · 06/10/2022 15:11

Get those 90-year-olds out working. Lazy fuckers should be working for their pension.

Report
newnamethanks · 06/10/2022 15:48

I've got a better idea. Let's indenture the children of the long term unemployed and put them into a 12 hour day work scheme, from the age of 10 or so, that will stop them turning into scrounging lazy buggers like their parent/s. The parents, of course, will also be expected to work for their pittance, there's always plenty of shit-shovelling available that nobody else wants to do. Stop giving them free stuff that only responsible grafters should get as a perk for all their hard work. NHS, Education, etc. Paid for by workers, for workers. Let's reward enterprise and punish poverty. Ideal.

Report
Emotionalsupportviper · 06/10/2022 15:51

FrankTheThunderbird · 04/10/2022 10:27

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

THIS! ^^^

If jobs are there, and people are qualified and able to do them, then pay the proper rate for the job you tight, vindictive buggers!

This is an exploiter's charter.

Report
Emotionalsupportviper · 06/10/2022 15:53

Notjustanymum · 06/10/2022 14:01

No, no, no, no, no!

This would result in employers getting the idea that they can pay people less than minimum wages and will drive already low rates of pay lower, as they let those people go in favour of non-employees doing the work for their benefits…

National Minimum Wage has already partially achieved this, which is why there is a lot of sympathy for the Rail Strikes, as Mick Lynch has admirably explained the reasons behind these is because wages haven’t kept up with prices…

If real wages had kept up with inflation and house prices, an equivalent 1987 salary of £10,500 would now be just under £70,000, when in fact it’s just over £50,000 due to “Austerity” and the introduction of the Minimum Wage…

"The good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad by the worst"

Can't remember who said it - a Victorian reformer, I think.

Report
Zilla1 · 06/10/2022 16:02

@antelopevalley don't forget the crib sheet, pensioners were hard working (voters) deserving of their pensions. Benefit recipients don't leave the house at 6am unlike the hard working workers who work, well except all those benefit recipients who receive in work benefits or whose caring responsibilities might require this.

Report
hearditthroughthegravevine · 06/10/2022 16:21

Terrible. If people are working, in any capacity, whether that is scrubbing graffiti off walls or picking up litter (except in regards to pay back orders or volunteering) then they must, MUST be paid the correct wage!!

Report
OneTC · 06/10/2022 17:58

Once everyone who doesn't have to live here has left there will need to be a new excuse as to why wages stay artificially low, and it will be because benefit claimants are forcing the government to offer them as free labour to profit making companies. Then people could get upset about the fact that the terminally unemployed are working

Report
XenoBitch · 06/10/2022 19:02

Thatboymum · 06/10/2022 12:37

People who can and choose not to work should after a set amount of time be cut back and made to find work.
single parents / low earning households doing as many hours as is possible to them or ultimately no Hours if they really can’t I’m happy to be supported fully.
Disabled and carers again if they can do something absolutley if they can’t shouldn’t be punished for it and again I think deserve full support.

Under UC, no one chooses not to work. You get threatened with sanction if you are not providing proof of job hunting... all for £334 each month.
The cut to benefit if someone is not employed in a certain amount of time is going to be discriminatory to people who have not been employed for a very long time (be that due illness or being a SAHP), or older people who already face discrimination in the job market. With all the best will in the world, those people can not force someone to employ them

It is not healthy or sustainable in the long term to be doing 60 hour weeks in a low paid job. Such jobs are mostly physical in nature, and take a huge toll on the body. Also, we work to live, not live to work.

Who will decide work a disabled person can do? How will you make employers take them on?

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.