80 hrs community service for drink driving but 120 hrs if you are unemployed.

[carernotasaint]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158195/Jonas-Armstrong-Robin-Hood-actor-sentenced-charity-shop-work-caught-drink-driving.html

The reason i am comparing the two is that its proof that the unemployed are being treated worse than someone who has broken the law.
Part of Armstrongs punishment is 80 hrs community service but if you are signing on and mandated to Mandatory Work Activity you then have to do 30 hrs a week for 4 weeks = 120 hrs so it would seem that being unemployed is much much worse than being drunk and getting into a car.

That's a silly comparison. Someone signing on may get valuable work experience from a placement that leads to future employment. Someone who already has a job and has to give up time to do community service is being punished for their stupidity.

Maybe they realise that fitting in 80 hours is a huge punishment/inconvenirnce if employed. it would take months to do it at a few hours a week.

Not so much of a ptoblrm for an unrmployed person so they up the hours to try and make the levvel of punishmen similar.

I don't think that's the point the OP is making. Unemployed people don't get stiffer sentences for drink driving. A four week Work Programme as an attempt to get the long-term unemployed back into the work habit is not the same thing at all.

I think you are being ridicolous. A four week work programme is about helping a long term unemployed person become employable again. It shows that they can get up in the morning and hopefully they will have a reference at the end of the placement and maybe a job.

I didn't realise that unemployed criminals got given longer community service. I imagine if you wanted to make their life difficult you could only let them do 5 hours a week. Anyway an unemployed person needs to be available for work.

i wasnt talking about unemployed criminals i was talking about the fact that someone charged with drink driving gets 80 hrs community service and yet someone who is unemployed who has no criminal record has to do 120 hrs workfare for 4 weeks on Mandatory Work Activity or 780 hrs workfare for six months if they get put on the other "training course" Community Task Force.

carernotasaint,

What is shit is that there are single mothers who are on the minimum wage who slog their guts out working 40 hours a week, but are worse off than those sitting on their arse on benefits.

Mandatory Work Activity is for people who are LONG term unemployed and are fit enough to work. As a country we cannot afford to have a fit healthy person on income support doing nothing. If someone has been on job seekers allowance for two years then that is more than enough time for them to find a job.

Making someone work in return for their benefits is not the same as making a criminal work for nothing. The mandatory work activity scheme has nothing to do with punishment. An unemployed person will not go to jail if they refuse to do work experience, they will just get no benefits.

Wow youve really fallen for the divide and rule spiel havent you.

Less 'divide and rule' more a case of 'ask a stupid question'......

Im with you on this Op , and i get where your coming from , but NOBODY has to go on the work programme or do work experience . If you , or someone you know is on it , you can withdraw consent at any time . This really is one of the biggest cons the dwp have done so far , and its completeley ilegal .

The jobcentre bullys people into signing data protection waivers , they tell you its mandatory yet they seek your permission in writing to send your details onto companys like a4e . These companys are paid for each referral they receive from the jobcentre . You cannot be sanctioned for refusing to sign data protection waivers .

Companys like Tesco and Argos have a large turn over of jobseekers , when current placements come to an end they are simply replaced with more free workers . ( There are currently campaighns to stop this ) see boycott workfare website .

There is nothing good about the workfare scheme , it CAUSES unemployment , and the only people who profit are the millionaire bosses of companys like Argos who have a constant supply of free workers .

Sick and ill people are not exempt either , the dwp plans to refer thousands more to the work programme . Many people are bullied and humiliated whilst on the schemes and in fact a large number of jobseekers were coached to london to work for free where they were told to sleep under a bridge for the night .

If you or someone you know is being pimped out by one of these third party providers there are things you can do to prevent it legally .

Lots of people support the work programme , beleiving it leads to a job at the end of it or valuable work experience , when this isnt the case at all .

Jobseekers are now working in hospitals , helping prepare meals and helping doing basic things . They are also sent into nursing homes where they care for elderly confused people despite the fact they have no experience or qualifications . This devalues nurses and carers and other paid staff .

Many people claim to support it , yet if they considered how much of their job could be delegated to a free worker they would think twice . There are currently hundreds of unemployed nurses , teachers , every type of trade imaginable . Just hope your employer doesnt jump on the band wagon and start offering " work experience " for up to 6 months at a time .

For those who think its an acceptable scheme , your not on it and your not expected to work for a fat cat for free . Slave labour is illegal in the Uk and we have the minimum wage laws for good reason .

40 hrs a wk x £6.08 min wage = £243.20.

Jobseekers Allowance = £71 a week.

So it's not obvious how a single mother working 40 hours a week will have less coming in than the same person on benefits, especially as the working person will have working tax credits.

But I can entirely see how the might feel poorer if they are paying a mortgage rather than rent, as working or not they'd probably get housing benefit if renting.

And I agree that the fact that housing benefit is deducted (tho I think not pound for pound) for earnings will nearly equalise the income.

The big factor that would make a difference would presumably be childcare costs - but that's an argument for making more low-cost childcare available, not an argument for reducing subsistence allowances to the unemployed.

And unfortunately it's not just the fit who are being sent on MWA. It's planned for the sick as well.

It's planned for the sick as well.

I know , its disgusting Kipper .

Apparently its already happening for the sick. Boycott Workfare have said that Asda"s Sefton Park store in Liverpool already have people on the ESA WRAG working there unpaid.

antiworkfare.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/asda-targeted-by-combat-workfare.html

"So it's not obvious how a single mother working 40 hours a week will have less coming in than the same person on benefits, especially as the working person will have working tax credits.

But I can entirely see how the might feel poorer if they are paying a mortgage rather than rent, as working or not they'd probably get housing benefit if renting."

Some on income support gets a lot of little things that add up. Ie. free dentistry, help with council tax, free school meals. Also there are costs in going to work, ie. travel, work clothes, child care (childcare tax credits only pay 70%). A full time worker on the minimum wage will have to pay national insurance.

I feel that the organsations should be paying something for these people to work for them. Otherwise there is no incentive to take on paid workers. I am not sure how much employers should be asked to pay.