Tories to announce full workfare next week.

[Darkesteyes]

According to the Mail This just popped up in my Twitter feed.

twitter.com/SkyNews/status/383342225926524928/photo/1

[mirry2]

Plottwist but how many applications are checked by the advisors hat they've actually been posted? It's easy to write one out.

[ParsingFancy]

"I suspect that job seekers who are compelled to carry out unpaid work won't be dong it 40 hours a week and so in effect they will be receiving more than the minimum wage if it's averaged out over the week "

Eh?

Workfare has been up and running for a while, and many people have already been working at least 30 hours a week. Which comes out at £1.89 per hour for under 25s and £2.39 for over 25s.

What on earth made you imagine your statement above, mirry?

[ParsingFancy]

In fact Argos have been accused of using workfarers for more hours/wk than paid staff.

[mirry2]

Parsingfancy I'm obviously wrong if what you say is correct. however I am all in favour of getting people into work whether paid or unpaid.

[ttosca]

Parsingfancy I'm obviously wrong if what you say is correct. however I am all in favour of getting people into work whether paid or unpaid.

Work for work's sake?

Even if it doesn't increase their chances of long-term employment (which Workfare has shown NOT to do), and even if it pushes down wages overall in the workforce because employers would rather take on free unpaid placements than paid workers?

[mirry2]

Yes, work for work's sake. Sitting round watching TV all day is not good for anybody's health or self worth imo.

[SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter]

As I said on the other thread about this: it makes absolutely no economic sense to provide employers with free labour. Not only does it undermine the existing work force, it also means that people will be working for less than minimum wage therefore unable to pay tax or contribute to the economy. Work for work's sake only make sense if you are a business looking for a tax payer subsided workforce. And then only in the short term.

Mirry - would you be happy if you were made redundant, then rehired to do the same job for less than a third of minimum wage?

[mirry2]

Saskia that would not happen to me

[mirry2]

Call me a cynic but I wonder how many of the posters on this thread who object to the latest government employment policy are not working?

[HeySoulSister]

well ive just come off JSA....very easy to manipulate them into thinking you have been searching

I wrote on my booklet,which you fill in as evidence,that I had a job offer....the advisor DIDNT EVEN READ IT.....they never did. they just skim it to make sure it has been filled in....you get a 5 min slot....the same script read to you every 2 weeks...

[mirry2]

Heysoulsister glad you agree. I've also been on JSA and can confirm what you say.

[BaldricksTurnip]

I love the way people get in to a state about benefit 'scroungers' and feel completely happy with people on benefits being treated like nothing on earth, yet are strangely silent about the despicable amount that these Tory fatcats pay themselves for bringing our country to its knees. If people have got any sense they will join me in voting these Tory bastards OUT at the next election.

[ParsingFancy]

Perhaps I can rephrase Saskia's Q: if you were made redundant, then sent to work for Tesco for a third of minimum wage, would you be happy?

[BaldricksTurnip]

And no I am not on benefits.

[mirry2]

Baldricks you clearly have a political agenda that goes way beyond workfare. Your posts don't become you. Maybe try the SWP or similar?

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Yes, the long term unemployed should be encouraged to work, BUT

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS AVAILABLE. You can't put every unemployed person in a job. There are physically not enough jobs.

Plus, how does it help the economy and unemployment long term if Tesco etc are PAID to take workfare people AND don't have to pay their wages? Already companies are using workfare people in preference to regular employees, as in unskilled roles workfare is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper.

[SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter]

mirry So it won't happen to you, but it's okay if it happens to other people?

And yes, I am working, for considerably more than mw. That doesn't mean I believe I can either feel smug, or bury my head in the sand and assume the economy won't affect me.

[BillyBanter]

People get benefits because they can't work, don't have work, don't have enough work or don't get paid enough for the work that they do.

People who work should be paid. Companies who have work carried out by people should pay those people for their work. Our taxes should not be paying companies' wages bills. If there is a job then someone should be paid to do it, not forced to do it for free.


In workfare people are working for free. companies are getting you and me to pay their wages bills. Why are you not complaining about that? You are subsidising Tesco? You like that?

This will put more people out of work, who will then have less chance of finding alternative work and so will also be forced to work for free. Wages will be forced down even further than now. Eventually (if not already) your wages will also be forced down or you will also be made redundant. In what way do you workfare supporters think that is a good thing?

[BillyBanter]

And for the record I have never claimed benefits, never been out of work, and have always earned well above minimum wage.

[HeySoulSister]

look at it from Tesco(if we are using them as the main culprits) point of view......unqualified workfare workers,no references,no enthusiasm,no experience.....these people take time to get to anywhere near the standard required to do a job effectively.

don't you think Tesco will eventually realise that workfare is a false economy for them?

[LittleRobots]

I'm really aware of all those who have now slipped through the esa. Too sick to work, but not sick enough to get esa. Those with me or depression or similar.

Also those with children who will have a nightmare of arranging childcare for something that isn't a proper job.

[usualsuspect]

If they are doing work for free, then the employers who use them don't have to employ someone.

So there are fewer paid jobs around.

So tell me how is it a good thing?

[HeySoulSister]

but the employer will have the headache of having to have staff to both train and supervise the workfare people......

I think that it will be dropped by most employers once the novelty has worn off....sorry,but ive seen and smelled (weed) too many JSA claimants,the same ones seem to be sat outside every sign on day. stoned,drunk,loud.....how will Tesco be happy having these kind of clientele wearing their uniforms?

I literally signed off JSA last week after being on it since march. there are two types of claimant and those I describe are the majority

[BillyBanter]

Hey For starters you have completely stereotyped everyone who has to do workfare. Some massive assumptions there. Many people will be desperate enough and hopeful enough of maybe getting a job at the end to put the effort in. They will not all be unqualified for those jobs, they may even have had those jobs before, and have references.

These jobs are not manager positions. People are taken on short-term to do them all the time, or used to be until they could be covered by workfare. If they were good enough to pay money to then, even if they were just working for a couple of months then the same is true now.

I hope you find yourself in the same position one day. If you think this is ok for them, then presumably you think it's ok for you.

[usualsuspect]

They don't even provide uniforms or training.

It's unpaid labour,nothing more.