New workfare trial for school leavers.

cricketballs · 28/08/2012 21:27

bit of a habit tonight op - just posting a link without any comments . So what do you think is unreasonable part of this story?

cricketballs · 28/08/2012 21:29

but I will add that I for once will not admit the following came from me at all I agree; young people should learn that money does not come from nothing and they have to work to gain it

WorraLiberty · 28/08/2012 21:29

WTF is it with the links?

Thanks but I can find my own internet stories to read...

Original poster

carernotasaint · 28/08/2012 21:41

And it includes working in care homes.

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/work-fulltime-for-no-pay-or-lose-your-benefits-says-employment-minister-in-crackdown-on-neets-8084156.htm

OP posts:

Original poster

carernotasaint · 28/08/2012 21:46

Sorry my internets playing up tonight so i didnt want to write really long posts only to have them go pffft.

OP posts:

flatpackhamster · 28/08/2012 22:10

At least you found the time to post all the articles you wanted to post. That's a blessed relief. I was worried we wouldn't get through the night without a 'People getting free stuff may have to do something for it' story dressed up as gulag torture.

epeesarepointythings · 28/08/2012 22:17

I stand by my opinion that if this is real work that really needs doing then it should be paid at the minimum wage. End. Of.

Anything else is just doing a genuinely unemployed person who might have taken that job out of the opportunity. And I don't like my taxes funding employers who should be paying for their staff.

FWIW I think the whole Tory workfare/reform of benefits for the disabled/dismantling of the NHS/free schools and the GCSE scandal needs as mush media coverage as possible so thank you, carer and keep posting.

JumpingThroughMoreHoops · 28/08/2012 22:20

They haven't paid into the system, why should they draw out? the Welfare State was meant as a safety blanket - not a life style choice - and working for benefits seems perfectly reasonable. That should be applied across the board - they do it in other countries.

Dawndonna · 28/08/2012 22:27

No, working for benefits should not be applied across the board. Those with severe disabilities should not be made to work for benefits.

epeesarepointythings · 28/08/2012 22:46

Jumping why then do we have a minimum wage if we're going to subsidise employers by undercutting it? Might as well just do away with the NMW then - and it isn't as if a 16yo's NMW is a lot to begin with.

I have nothing against making people work, but they should be paid the going rate for the job. Why are people so against a bit of fair play? Life's bloody tough for young people right now, especially the ones chasing unskilled work. I don't see the usefulness in kicking them further down when we should be encouraging them - and that could start by paying them NMW when they take one of these jobs.

If they refuse - then certainly sanctions should be applied. I have no problem with that at all.

JumpingThroughMoreHoops · 28/08/2012 22:50

We weren't talking about disability benefits this thread is about unemployment benefits.

flatpackhamster · 29/08/2012 07:58

epeesarepointythings

Jumping why then do we have a minimum wage if we're going to subsidise employers by undercutting it? Might as well just do away with the NMW then - and it isn't as if a 16yo's NMW is a lot to begin with.

I would agree that we should do away with the minimum wage, because it stops unskilled workers getting work.

I have nothing against making people work, but they should be paid the going rate for the job. Why are people so against a bit of fair play?

The question is, what's the going rate? The government says that the going rate is X, but is it? The minimum wage artificially fixes the 'going rate' at a figure which is politically acceptable. It bears no relation to the real going rate at all.

Life's bloody tough for young people right now, especially the ones chasing unskilled work. I don't see the usefulness in kicking them further down when we should be encouraging them - and that could start by paying them NMW when they take one of these jobs.

That subsidy that we're paying to each of these young people has to come from other taxpayers. Young people have several advantages - they can often live at home instead of having a mortgage, they are much less likely to have dependents and they are flexible enough to travel to other places to work because of that lack of dependents.

What you're proposing is taking money from other taxpayers - usually ones who have rent or a mortgage, a car, household bills and a family to feed - and giving it to people who don't have those things, in order to meet an artificial, politically-motivated target for income.

I know life is tough for young people. It's going to be a miserable two decades and they're going to have it hard. You're not going to make it any easier by taking money off other people who will also have it hard.

JeezyPeeps · 29/08/2012 08:06

Maybe the programme should work out the number of hours at minimum wage that their benefit equates to, and have that as the number of hours the benefit claimant has to work as part of the programme.

Then they might realise how much more they could earn if they worked more hours or got a better paying job.

RedHelenB · 29/08/2012 08:08

I don't think 13 weeks of doing some kind of job is necessarily a bad thing for young people to get an idea of how the world of work operates.

SerialKipper · 29/08/2012 08:25

"get an idea of how the world of work "

Working mandatorily for less than NMW and without protection of employment law is not how the world of work operates.

The taxpayer paying profit-making companies' wage bills as well as paying individually for the goods and services is not how the world of work operates.

There are specific circumstances where a host organisation can put time and effort into training which is sufficiently valuable to the worker that they can reasonably waive NMW - but that's for student doctors, nurses and teachers. Not jobs which will be NMW when fully trained.

vj32 · 29/08/2012 08:33

I've only skimmed the article, but work experience for young people is a good idea.

Its not for 16 year olds, who cannot claim JSA anyway, its for 18-24 year olds. If you are that age and do not have a total of 6 months paid work in the past then you work for your benefits for up to 13 weeks.

I think it is a problem if people who do not need it are forced to work for less then NMW, but in this case thy are targeting a group who desperately need experience, who are unlikely to get a paid job without experience.

dreamingofsun · 29/08/2012 09:35

agree with this in principle. But how do you ensure it just doesn't replace a paid job. My oldest is working in an old people's home during his hols, would he be out of a job and in even more debt when he graduates and the employer benefit financially?

SerialKipper · 29/08/2012 09:43

Nail on head, dreamingofsun.

MNHQ

KatMumsnet · 29/08/2012 10:07

Hi, we've moved this to In the News. Thanks.

limitedperiodonly · 29/08/2012 10:45

I'll say what I always say to the posters on these threads who support these schemes.

How do they benefit the economy and the taxpayer given that these workers do not pay tax and the taxpayer continues to pay their benefits?

These schemes benefit only those companies who want to dodge the cost of employing people and the govt which uses them to massage unemployment figures.

But if you can think of solid economic reasons for the Work Programme, then please give them.

epeesarepointythings · 29/08/2012 18:12

flatpackhamster I am old enough to remember the days before Labour reintroduced the NMW. People working for £1 - £2 per hour, knowing that if they objected, they would be booted out to be replaced by some other desperate soul. Is that what you want to go back to? Really?

FWIW I do not mind some of my taxes going to subsidise wages for people starting out - as long as it is the NMW and not less. It isn't as if the NMW is a living wage in any case. I am not a higher rate tax payer, my DH and I are not rich, but if we are willing to support those worse off than we are, why can't others? Your argument seems to be all about the 'haves' going 'me, me, me'.
Call me a socialist, I'll take it as a compliment.

To my mind the NMW is the hallmark of a civilised society. The choice as I see it is stark - do we want to engage in a race to the bottom with the sweatshop countries, or do we want to draw a line? Of course that leads to wider questions about what we want the world economy to be - a constant striving for that mythical thing called 'growth' which means in the end that someone at the bottom always pays for it, or a striving for a world in which everyone can live and afford to live? Unfortunately we'll probably get the former.

You also have not addressed my question as to why it is OK for our taxes to subsidise employers - many of whom are making nice profits for shareholders - but it is not OK for our taxes to subsidise young people's wages.

SunWukong · 29/08/2012 19:09

If there is work to be done they can pay someone to do it

limitedperiodonly · 29/08/2012 20:33

All good points epees.

I eagerly await Flatpack's answers, which I'm sure will be based on robust economic facts rather than namby-pamby shit about being nice to people.

NovackNGood · 29/08/2012 20:44

This is the second thread on the same issue by the same poster.

carernotasaint · 29/08/2012 20:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.