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.

[Octomore]

@Getoff

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.

What's to stop companies from gaming this system?

Claiming that they would happily run on a reduced workforce without this incentive, whereas in reality they would be recruiting anyway?

Time and again, companies exploit this kind of system. There should never be any kind of state subsidy for employers to create jobs IMO.

[OneTC]

@SarahSissions

@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

/vomit

[sóh₂wl̥]

I though we'd tried this already - Workfare.

Is this like Trickle down economics - tried and failed but worth another go.

[OneTC]

@sóh₂wl̥

I though we'd tried this already - Workfare.

Is this like Trickle down economics - tried and failed but worth another go.

And persistently attractive to idiots

[Octomore]

Well this is a good way of seeing who the hard of thinking MNers are, anyway.

[Rosehugger]

What they should be focussing on is getting people well enough to work by providing a decent health service and other public services to support them. If you have a poor NHS and widespread poverty you will find that more people can't work at all or fewer hours as their health conditions have worsened.

What the Tories always focus on is cutting public services which seems to save money but then puts pressure on acute services - the coal face like the police and A&E. So it doesn't even make sense financially, let alone on a human level.

[Lightningfast]

Are you Liz Truss or her representative trying to see how yet another terrible new idea is likely to go down?

[Forfrigz]

But then surely it just becomes a job? If the work needs doing, hire someone to do it and pay them properly.

The tories think the population is workshy but what they really are is much more aware of being exploited. People being paid peanuts do the bare minimum and who can blame them.

[quiltcoverss]

@ginghamstarfish would you also have them wearing a sign stating they are claiming benefits as they do this community service?
The majority of people who are unemployed and struggling to find paid work are probably feeling pretty shitty and inadequate to start with ..nothing like rubbing salt in wounds

[Thesearmsofmine]

@SarahSissions

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

If there is work to be done then people should be paid a proper wage for it not forced to work for pennies per hour in order to be able to survive while employers get free labour. It’s modern day slavery, there is no choice.

[tiddlywinks2]

Just awful.

I've always worked, 3 years ago my life changed dramatically, I had my first seizure, upon investigation I was diagnosed with brain lesions. I can't work, due to seizures still not being under control. I've lost everything. I'm hoping I can get back to work at some point. I feel so shit every single day, I hate having to claim benefits, but I have 3 DCs and I'm a single parent.

Claiming benefits has been the most sole destroying thing I've ever done. I can't believe the government want to make it even worse.

[maddening]

It could only work if the hours worked to pay received were at least minimum wage and for the work completed at market rates.

But it could never apply against people with disabilities- that would be a disgrace. It could only apply for those in receipt of benefits for job seeking or less than full time work top ups - not against top ups to people in full time employment , or part time with dc under school age or those on carers benefits- so it becomes a rather limited and difficult tool.

[ChaToilLeam]

An exploiter’s charter.

Companies are already exploiting workers - and taxpayers - by paying wages so low they need to be topped up with benefits. Make companies pay people properly and reduce the benefits bill that way.

I don’t see the Conservatives doing this though, because that would affect their donors and cronies. They’d rather go for the easy targets of the unemployed and disabled. Nobody with principles can in all conscience vote for this shower.

[AuntSalli]

@TooMuchToDoTooLittleInclination

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.

I would imagine the level of support available would be minimal I worked over the pandemic as a job coach to people who lost their jobs through no fault of the rain these people were literally in the highlands of Scotland. Within 12 weeks they were offered the voluntary program which I was helping with the voluntary program became non-involuntary after 16 weeks.

[QuestionableMouse]

@SarahSissions

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

@SarahSissions

You have drastically missed the point.

Work isn't the issue. Most people want to work, in whatever capacity they can.

They don't want to work for a pittance that doesn't cover their bills or give them even a basic quality of life.

Pay fair wages, from the most "unskilled*" jobs and see what happens.

Fair wages for fair work! What you're describing is akin to slave labour which is rightly illegal!

(*there's no suck thing as unskilled work, just undervalued jobs.)

[SarahSissions]

@WakeUpAndBe animals expend energy and toil in order to survive so whilst they don’t use cash they do pay. Poor example.

I specifically think it should be work that benefits the state or society- so no an employer wouldn’t get commercial gain

[Getoff]

@PeekAtYou

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.

Maybe the way to temporarily expand the job market in selective areas is to only pay subsidies where the number of minimum wage hours paid for during a financial year has been increased. The subsidy would only be paid on the extra hours.

(Also limit the scheme to employers who are the end-users of labour, otherwise, employment umbrella companies could game the rules.)

(Just to be clear, I'm not advocating workfare, see my other posts on this thread. I'm talking about using subsidies to expand the normal job market, with no jobs explicitly filled by benefits claimants.)

[tellmewhyyyyyy]

@EscapeRoomToTheSun

We tried this already. It was called "workfare". It didn't work.

If you want people to be able to find work, you can't make them spend all their time doing something else! My last job application took me two full days.

Most people on universal credit are in work. It is a government subsidy to companies paying starvation wages.

Many people who are changing jobs are already employed and have to give up their leisure time to fill out job applications when they wish to move to another job. Were you aware of this fact?

[FarmerRefuted]

@SarahSissions

@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

And then they get sanctioned. A quick Google will show you all details of the many people who have died as a result of being sanctioned. Giving people the choice between forced labour or starvation is not a choice.

Personally I'd rather people were paid the support they're entitled to and supported to find work via training schemes, access to affordable childcare, and a grant scheme that addresses the barriers to employment (e.g., paid bus pass for first month until they get paid, money for interview/work clothes, money for first month's childcare, etc) alongside realistic financial support for carers and disabled people.

Imagine begrudging people their dignity and thinking they should be forced into metaphorical sackcloth and ashes in exchange for such luxuries as food and housing.

[AuntSalli]

The way I saw this is if the job is available to a jobseeker for free at the governments expense i.e. the 70 odd quid a week benefits payment then the job is available at £10 an hour or whatever the market rate is like end of story.
I have absolutely no objection to the job centre returning to what it used to be i.e. facility to help people get jobs and that might well be employment with the friends and family of government ministers with businesses or indeed job centre employees. But it absolutely does not become a cattle market for cheap labour.

[WakeUpAndBe]

@Lightningfast

Are you Liz Truss or her representative trying to see how yet another terrible new idea is likely to go down?

Lol no!

The article was in the Guardian, yesterday I think.

Just wondered what people think?

The news is also saying that Truss won’t say if benefits (except pensions) will go up in line with inflation.

Her attitude towards the two different benefits (pensions and non-pension benefits) is very apparent.

[Bzzz]

I completely agree with it and have been saying that it should happen.
It benefits the claimant as they get work experience, a reference, aren't out of thr workforce for years, whilst also benefiting the uk as whole (less litter, more support in local communities etc).

[Octomore]

@Getoff

Maybe the way to temporarily expand the job market in selective areas is to only pay subsidies where the number of minimum wage hours paid for during a financial year has been increased. The subsidy would only be paid on the extra hours.

(Also limit the scheme to employers who are the end-users of labour, otherwise, employment umbrella companies could game the rules.)

(Just to be clear, I'm not advocating workfare, see my other posts on this thread. I'm talking about using subsidies to expand the normal job market, with no jobs explicitly filled by benefits claimants.)

It's still too open to exploitation.

Companies make profit from the labour of their workers. The incentive for companies to expand their workforce is the ability to generate more turnover and increase profits. Governments should not get involved in subsidising this. Ever.

[Tyrozet]

Awful.

If there is a need for 30 hours of work to be done, then employ the person properly to do it.

[QuestionableMouse]

@SarahSissions

@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

You have to be trolling.

How do you think people could pay for stuff with no money coming in? You'll get desperate people turning to crime just to keep a roof over their heads.

I refuse to believe you're being serious.