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%
OurChristmasMiracle · 04/10/2022 10:57

So if people are expected to be working 30hours a week how are they supposed to job search, complete applications and attend interviews and travel to interviews for paid employment?

Report
Getoff · 04/10/2022 10:58

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.

I agree with creating work if/when there is a shortage of jobs, but the work must be genuine jobs, even if they are jobs that would only exist temporarily to keep unemployment down. I think the way to do it is by incentivising employers regardless of whether they are public or private sector to create extra jobs. I don't think there's any need to explicitly link these jobs to the benefits system. That already contains mechanisms to persuade people to take available jobs.

Report
WakeUpAndBe · 04/10/2022 10:59

cawfeee · 04/10/2022 10:46

Pensioners are the largest expense, get them lazy bastards out cleaning graffiti, litter picking for their money.
My dads still working in his 70s, why should his peers not have to do the same.
Wonder why that ones not been suggested.

Pensioners will be protected because they’re statistically more likely to vote Tory.

But you are right… What Chris Philip said about disabled people can also be applied to the elderly too. So, pensions are potentially at risk here too.

OP posts:
Report
Mrsmch123 · 04/10/2022 10:59

I don't think it's the worse idea. Would certainly help weed out the people who take the piss with benefits as they would go and get a "proper" job and be paid for it. The problem is how you figure out who those people are without sending someone who genuinely needs to be on benefits out to do that job

Report
Awwlookatmybabyspider · 04/10/2022 11:00

OurChristmasMiracle · 04/10/2022 10:57

So if people are expected to be working 30hours a week how are they supposed to job search, complete applications and attend interviews and travel to interviews for paid employment?

Exactly. The powers that be can't have it both ways

Report
PerkingFaintly · 04/10/2022 11:00

FarmerRefuted · 04/10/2022 10:48

I think one of the pound shops (Pound world?) and Tesco, possibly s couple of other companies too, did this during the days of Workfare. They laid a load of paid staff off and then got the the same staff back for free via Workfare. There were also lots of reports of Workfare staff being treated like shit by companies - not allowed proper breaks, banned from using facilities for "real staff" such as staff rooms and toilets (think it was the pound shop again who were sending Workfare staff to public toilets around the corner because shop toilets were "staff only"), being given all of the shit hours and shit tasks, nd basically being treated like lower class citizens.

Yes, I remember Tesco doing this.

People working for Tesco under Workfare were deemed not employees, and not covered by Health and Safety legislation or Employment legislation.

It got particularly nasty when they Workfared people with poor health – eg a heart condition. For an employee, Tesco would have to do a risk assessment before asking them to run up and down stairs or hump boxes. For a coerced "volunteer" no one took responsibility: not Tesco; not the JobCentre. But the person was threatened with sanctions if they failed to "volunteer".

Report
BurnDownTheDiscoHangTheDJ · 04/10/2022 11:02

A cynical person might say what a cheap way to get people to do the low paid jobs (eg fruit picking) that no one wants and we used to have immigrant labour for (before freedom of movement was abolished!) But I'm deeply in uncynical so wouldn't say that.

Report
the80sweregreat · 04/10/2022 11:04

Even the most basic online applications need around half a day to fill them in.
If the government know that they can't do both easily , it might work , but many people do have restrictions in place and can't work 30 hours that easily. It has to be fair to each individual
It won't be though :(

Report
FarmerRefuted · 04/10/2022 11:04

TooMuchToDoTooLittleInclination · 04/10/2022 10:54

What is the reality if claiming benefits now?

say you're a 26 year old male, no childcare responsibilities, able bodied, no MH issues.

How much would you get & for how long? What expectations are there of job seeking, taking A job, rather than waiting for a CEO job to come up?

I have just realise that I have absolutely no idea.

Based on a 26yr old man:

recently fallen out of work
living in a rented flat for £400 a month (cheapest private let in my area according to RightMove)
no dependants or partner
no savings
band A council tax

He would be entitled to £170 a week/£680 four weekly.

This is made up of:

£74 universal credit
£77 new style Jobseekers
£19 council tax support

He needs to pay his rent from that, his utilities, his food, clothing, transport, etc.

To ask what you think about ‘work for dole’ idea?
Report
OneTC · 04/10/2022 11:05

Let's take viable paid jobs out of the work market and give them to people that don't want them or can't do them.

Those people we just made unemployed to clear the spaces, should they go the front of indentured servitude queue or the back? I mean these are formerly working people so deserve less punishment than the evasive doleys...

Report
FlorettaB · 04/10/2022 11:06

The deserving and undeserving poor. I can’t help but feel that the Tories read A Christmas Carol as a horror story.

Report
KitchiHuritAngeni · 04/10/2022 11:06

I have a disability, I had to leave my job because of it.

The jobcentre was absolutely horrific. They said I was fully capable of working in my previous, physical role. Despite the fact I had cancer, despite the fact I couldn't move my head, despite the fact I can't move my left arm at all, despite the fact my left leg goes numb and I collapse regularly. They sanctioned me for having hospital appointments a hundred miles away which coincided with the day they wanted to see me, even though I gave them plenty of notice I couldn't attend. They didn't take the side effects of my medication into account and told me if I stopped taking them I would be capable for work so it was my choice. I had numerous letters, evidence and reports from physios, surgeons, doctors and neurologists too but none were accepted as evidence.

They decided I was fully capable of work because I can move one arm above my head. I asked them to tell me what job I could do that entailed me merely lifting one arm and they said that was up to me to find one.

It took a year of tribunals for them to finally acknowledge I couldn't work (that's when I finally got an independent tribunal with a doctor present) Another 6 months after that to finally sort out my money.

During the time it took them to finally acknowledge I couldn't work they would have made me do these jobs.

That system is barbaric and not fit for purpose and this scheme would make it a million times worse.

Report
Getoff · 04/10/2022 11:07

So let's say background unemployment due to job turnover is usually 5%. If unemployment in a particular area temporarily hits 10%, the government could offer a subsidy to employers in that area who expanded the number of minimum-wage employees they have. If people who work have 60% of their UC clawed back for each pound they earn, the government could refund employers half of what they pay out, and still come out ahead. The economy would benefit from the extra economic output, at no overall cost to the government. If/when excess unemployment disappeared in the area, the subsidy scheme would be phased out again.

Report
SarahSissions · 04/10/2022 11:07

Work 30 hours a week- I’m on board. For those “on benefits who are already working” if they are only doing 15 hours they can make up the other 15 working for the state before they get any money. for those not working then they can do the full 30.
nothing in this life is free…apart from benefits it seems.
I don’t know why some people find the idea of work so offensive

Report
PeekAtYou · 04/10/2022 11:07

They've done this before (Workfare) Employers sacked full time MW workers and replaced them with Workfare people then let them go after 6 months and replaced them with a new batch of people.
All work should be paid at least NMW. Tax payer money shouldn't be used to lower wage bills at profitable companies like Tesco. It's bad enough that UC is in effect a subsidy for employers and that MW isn't set at a level that full time workers don't need to claim.

Report
FarmerRefuted · 04/10/2022 11:09

SarahSissions · 04/10/2022 11:07

Work 30 hours a week- I’m on board. For those “on benefits who are already working” if they are only doing 15 hours they can make up the other 15 working for the state before they get any money. for those not working then they can do the full 30.
nothing in this life is free…apart from benefits it seems.
I don’t know why some people find the idea of work so offensive

Because its not work, its forced labour.

Report
WakeUpAndBe · 04/10/2022 11:09

KitchiHuritAngeni · 04/10/2022 11:06

I have a disability, I had to leave my job because of it.

The jobcentre was absolutely horrific. They said I was fully capable of working in my previous, physical role. Despite the fact I had cancer, despite the fact I couldn't move my head, despite the fact I can't move my left arm at all, despite the fact my left leg goes numb and I collapse regularly. They sanctioned me for having hospital appointments a hundred miles away which coincided with the day they wanted to see me, even though I gave them plenty of notice I couldn't attend. They didn't take the side effects of my medication into account and told me if I stopped taking them I would be capable for work so it was my choice. I had numerous letters, evidence and reports from physios, surgeons, doctors and neurologists too but none were accepted as evidence.

They decided I was fully capable of work because I can move one arm above my head. I asked them to tell me what job I could do that entailed me merely lifting one arm and they said that was up to me to find one.

It took a year of tribunals for them to finally acknowledge I couldn't work (that's when I finally got an independent tribunal with a doctor present) Another 6 months after that to finally sort out my money.

During the time it took them to finally acknowledge I couldn't work they would have made me do these jobs.

That system is barbaric and not fit for purpose and this scheme would make it a million times worse.

I’m so sorry that happened to you. Hope you’re ok now xxx 💐

OP posts:
Report
Rosehugger · 04/10/2022 11:09

No. If work exists they should be paid at least minimum wage for it. If it's temporary work then she should get paid properly for the hours they worked work then be able to go back straight onto unemployment benefit/UC without this being affected.

Report
Octomore · 04/10/2022 11:10

PeekAtYou · 04/10/2022 11:07

They've done this before (Workfare) Employers sacked full time MW workers and replaced them with Workfare people then let them go after 6 months and replaced them with a new batch of people.
All work should be paid at least NMW. Tax payer money shouldn't be used to lower wage bills at profitable companies like Tesco. It's bad enough that UC is in effect a subsidy for employers and that MW isn't set at a level that full time workers don't need to claim.

Yes, I know that major employers did this too, e.g. Tesco

It equates to a massive state subsidy of corporate profits. Corporates get free workers, the taxpayer picks up the tab, and there are fewer jobs available for people to apply for so unemployment actually goes up.

Report
Sindonym · 04/10/2022 11:10

Sounds like he has zero clue about disability. I have disabled friends who want to work but Tories removed the employer supports that made that possible. My disabled son is non-verbal, has 24 hour 2:1 support and can be unsafe to be around other people. Good luck finding a job he can do.

God I really hate this lot of Tories.

Report
QuestionableMouse · 04/10/2022 11:11

I've also seen "work trials" at two different places, both of which used people for as long as the trial lasted, with the promise of a permanent job. They were let go as soon as the trial ended and the job centre sent the next person in for exactly the same to happen. It must be massively disheartening to be promised a decent job then have it snatched away. It's also very disruptive to the work environment, because you just get the person trained to a decent level and they get let go, for the cycle to start again.

Report
SarahSissions · 04/10/2022 11:11

@FarmerRefuted its not forced labour. You don’t have to do it, you only do it in exchange for benefits. If you don’t want to do it, you don’t have to

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

quiltcoverss · 04/10/2022 11:12

Disgusting
Degrading
There's a couple of words that I can use to describe the idea ...I've got many more

Report
WakeUpAndBe · 04/10/2022 11:12

SarahSissions · 04/10/2022 11:07

Work 30 hours a week- I’m on board. For those “on benefits who are already working” if they are only doing 15 hours they can make up the other 15 working for the state before they get any money. for those not working then they can do the full 30.
nothing in this life is free…apart from benefits it seems.
I don’t know why some people find the idea of work so offensive

nothing in this life is free

The employers using people on benefit will have free workers.

And it’s not strictly true that nothing in life is free. Animals don’t pay for living on the planet, do they?!

OP posts:
Report
Mistlewoeandwhine · 04/10/2022 11:12

Vile, hate-filled, exploitative and ridiculous - just another hate-filled idea from these awful people.

Report
Please create an account

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