Voluntary work or lose benefits

[Marjoriew]

Government intend to cut benefits of claimants on JSA who refuse to do voluntary work of 30 hours a week over a 4-week period.
Benefits could be stopped for up to 3 months if claimants refuse to comply.

Ryoko - from my last 4 jobs, over 10 years, I can only get a reference from one, as 2 of them have gone out of business, and the other one closed down then reopened under new ownership. The one that I (may) be able to get a reference from is a place I last worked in 9 years ago, that has a very high staff turnover, and no-one that worked there with me is still employed there. My CV looks awful!

LFN - Fair enough, but were you trying to support a family when you were working for those wages? Low wage jobs have NOT had wage rises in line with inflation costs on things like utilities, Your parents worked hard through your childhood, you had to share rooms just like my DC do, but I'll hazard a guess that they could cover the mortgage/rent on a 2-bed place through their wages alone. You can't do that nowadays in a low-paid job. It's just not possible to pay £10-11K rent out of £11,500-£16K and still feed/clothe/pay other utilities as well...Without Tax credits. A living wage would fix the amazing amount being paid in TC's.

At least you've had 4 mate, I've had no school education, 11 years on the dole, a few worthless certificates from mainly YTS training scheme things no one cares about, 5 bouts of new deal work placements no one cares about and almost 4 years employed by a company that doesn't give references, oh well you've got to laugh

When I was earning a very good wage, I was very happy to pay tax. It was a lot of tax but I knew it would provide healthcare for people, keep the streets clean and safe, educate children, and generally support my society, making it a pleasant, happy place to live in.

You'd cry otherwise Ryoko LOL!

'And none of the leftists has come up with a satisfactory answer as to why most of the boomtime jobs went to immigrants.'

I wonder if you'd think so highly of all these 'immigrants' if you realised that if they are EU/EEA they can and do claim tax credits and child benefit on children who have never set foot in the UK.

Here's why the jobs went to them.

Because if they had children, many of them were able to leave them behind in their home country and pay a rogue landlord, who was breaking the law by letting out to more than is legal in one abode, letting out the garden shed, etc. for space to put a sleeping bag.

They were then able to work as many hours, when and how they could, and spent as little as possible in the UK, instead sending it back to their home country. No childcare issues, no need for housing over little more than a covered camping site.

Employers twigged they could pay such people under min wage even, and so would only hire them and not UK people, who wanted min wage and safe conditions.

But alas, something tells me you won't be speaking so highly of immigrants once the UK has to fully open its borders to Romania and Bulgaria . . .

It will be a very welcome move by many. At least it will get people out of bed and doing things every day, maintining the discipline of an early start, getting dressed, doing some kind of work. Why should tax payers pay people for doing nothing? Workfare has worked well around the world.

Someone mentioned childcare. Plenty of us who work full time have had our children in child care, before and after school clubs - that is what real people do who work and don't expect the state to support them. I don't see why th
unemployed should be having a better deal. Even the new £400 a week housing benefit is nearly £21k a year. It's the fact some people out of work are better off than those in work which is grating for those hardworking squeezed middle.

Hard to find anything positive to say about this. It's clearly a con, it's clearly going to cost a lot to set up - but maybe it'll get a few people in the habit of getting up early for a month. After which they can go back to bed, of course.

No - I really am trying to find something to say to cheer us up. Who will this benefit? Not the employers, as LFN says. Not people in low-paid jobs, who won't really be affected, imo, as they probably won't lose their jobs to JSA claimants. Not unemployed people (or possibly a few?) Will charities benefit? Maybe. So that's something then.

I think this might well have unexpected repercussions for the government. As increasing numbers of people feel they have nothing more to lose, they'll build their own 'Big Society' and start fighting back.

Sorry - shouldn't be alarmist. I'm just very scared of this sort of scenario. And I'd never advocate civil unrest. Far too messy.

expatinscotland If I had my way, we would leave the EU. We would have much more open borders at the top end, and much more closed borders at the bottom end.

We don't need to import unskilled or low skilled workers into this country, whether they are from France, Romania, Poland or Nigeria.

I doubt that a second's thought has been given to how this will work practice. Like the Child Benefit thing. Sounds like something to cheer up the Daily Mail readers.

That won't happen, LFN. The EU is here to stay.

And we will need to open our borders further to new member states.

And yes, all those immigrants were entirely able to and did/do claim benefits, even whilst working (tax credits, child benefit) as they are entitled, regardless of whether the child or children lived here or not.

EU citizens claiming UK benefits really grates. It is so obviously unfair.

One solution would be to tie benefits to local authorities. Actually, eventually, I would like benefits to be completely devolved to local authorities, with different benefits available in different areas.

grannyonabike yes - I think the historically low levels of crime we have had for the last decade will change.

I am a very calm person, but feeling quite angry about the governments policies, and Im concerned about the huge numbers of young people coming out of school and university and now not even a job to show for it, the increasing pressure put on the population.. and now expected to work for free?

Some of them will react angrily, others perhaps it will be escapism through drugs, perhaps they will try to get balance through crime? :(

Actually what is involved in this civil unrest you speak of? sounds quite mild in comparisson.

lfn - the low-skilled jobs have already gone to china, india, etc.

No, for the last ten years, immigrants weren't able to claim benefits, my husband is an immigrant and it was stamped on his passport saying 'not allowed to claim benefits' or some such wording. This may have changed in the last couple of years, but not recently enough to account for the massive influx of immigrants in the past ten years. For the record, he's a higher rate taxpayer who has never claimed a penny in his life, but doesn't begrudge his taxes going on UK or indeed any EU citizens who need help as he knows how desperate it is to live in a country with no state benefits and which people beg on the streets or die of hypothermia in their own homes.

And I love the way you talk about immigrants leaving their families and living in poor, cramped conditions as if in some way they were relishing this lifestyle at the expense of everyone else. Would you live in one room, working for a minimum wage, not seeing your children for months? No, but that's what people do when desperate and when there is no welfare state and they will literally have no food if they don't work. How they must laugh at all of us in their makeshift campsite with no running water...(why aren't they all in council houses, anyway?)

No, Lifeinlimbo, I was trying to take back what I wrote. I suppose what was on my mind was that when things get tough, a sort of Blitz mentality is created - a real 'all in it together' situation, where people don't need to be told by some official in a suit to help each other.

But the other side of the coin is that, historically, when people have nothing to lose, they rise up against the government. I was allowing my imagination to run away with me. That's not going to happen here because, thank goodness, things aren't bad enough for enough people, and for most of us our poverty is only relative, and we do still have a lot to lose (even if it sometimes feels like we don't).

Btw, Expat, I don't think you are blaming immigrants for this, but you should be careful not to play into the hands of those who would, imo.

Inportant points, Onetoomanycornettos.

Most of the boom-time jobs did not go to immigrants, where did this notion come from? (links please)

As far as I saw, they went to ordinary hard working people.

'Someone mentioned childcare. Plenty of us who work full time have had our children in child care, before and after school clubs - that is what real people do who work and don't expect the state to support them. I don't see why the
unemployed should be having a better deal'

So not having to be put in childcare before and after school is actually a better deal, for kids and their parents?

Is it?
I thought people didn't object to kids being in childcare all round the clock, if it meant their parents were bringing in a full time wage.

But if it isn't much cop, well, I think it's probably better for the kids (and parents) not to have to do it, isn't it?

I'm not saying unemployed people should have happier children (or children who see their parents more). I'm saying that no one should have to put their children into wrap around care in order to survive.

That goes for wealthy people and poor people.
Nobody should be doing it if it's better for the kids not to be in that situation.

Existing schemes like 'Future Jobs Fund' - paying those on JSA minimum wage to work for 6 months in a post - are on hold. At my work, we've had 2 people through FJF and one of them turned out to be great. But at the moment, it seems no more people can be taken on as those running the Fund are waiting for direction from the government.

So now these schemes are to be replaced by asking the same group of people to do the same jobs for £2.18 per hour?? How would these people afford to get to work? And someone who said 30 hours a week could be done between 9.30 and 2.30 (avoiding need for childcare) needs to work on their maths!

I don't understand the critics of this idea. Surely if you're unemployed, you'd want to do everything possible to get another job, so getting some skills from unpaid work would be a good opportunity.

When I was unemployed I went and stuffed envelopes and folded leaflets for charities. It was demeaning work, but still better than being at home all day. I also did some one day courses provided by the council on interview skills etc. The attitude of many of the other people there was unbelievable - people would just answer their phones whilst the trainer was talking, or walk in 2 hours late without apologising. I think that people like that would benefit from the structure of unpaid work.

I grew up in an area with high unemployment and I remember going round to friends' houses after school and being shocked that their mothers who had been on benefits for years had spent all day in their pyjamas. It used to make me considering the long hours my mum worked.

Haven't read the whole thread so this point may have already been made but...

those of you who are complaining that these people will be working for less than the minimum wage, have you factored in the fact that the vast majority of the long term unemployed will also be receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit? 30 hours work a week to have your rent and council tax paid, plus £65 per week isn't so bad, and also they will already have been getting these benefits 'for free' for a good while before they have to do the 'voluntary' work

Makes sense to stay in your jammies, why create 2 sets of dirty clothes - that's public money they'd be spending on their Lidl soap powder you know...