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

[BaldricksTurnip]

It's not a rant though is it? Your unwillingness to enter into a debate about it says a lot tbh. I actually resent being made out to be some kind of militant extremist by you mirry. The views I have are echoed by most people I talk to and I'm just an ordinary wife and mum.

[mirry2]

Baldricks just give it a rest. We occupy different worlds

[noddyholder]

Funny how there is suddenly work for all the people who can't find jobs when the 'salary' is 60 quid a week. Fuckers all of them

[cubedmelon]

I have to say that for three out of the four people I know who are claiming JSA, seeing this has made me really happy. They make no secret of milking the system and avoiding work has become a hobby. It makes my blood boil hearing them and I cannot wait to see them finally be made to work after years and years of mocking the system.

For the other person I know on JSA, this is a real shame. They are extremely skilled in quite a specific area and are struggling to find work. Their skill will probably be wasted by them taking an unsuitable position in another field, this may reflect badly on their cv if a vacancy in their existing profession comes about a later date.

My local area needs more PCSO's, people to listen to children reading in schools, companionship in hospitals and nursing homes. Surely there are ways of doing this without 'stealing existing jobs'?

As with everything, there is never a 'one size fits all' though and it will be a good thing for some and not others.

[BaldricksTurnip]

What world do you inhabit then? Because I inhabit the one with the exploited poor and the shit government.

[ubik]

It's totally uncompetitive though, isn;t it. It flies in the face of tory free market economics doesn't it.

If you are a supplier, paying your staff a reasonable living wage, providing maternity benefits. sick leave etc etc and your buyer is profiting from staff paid for by the taxpayer then surely it will hit your profit margins if your buyer can sell at a lower price to increase market share/ push volumes.

That would then force you to cut wages for your staff to protect your bottom line and your staff will have less money to spend...

[SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter]

HeySoulSister Rubbish? Really? That's very eloquent.

And B&Q may employ some older people, but obviously they can't employ every single older person who requires a job.

There is a huge problem for older/sick/disabled people seeking employment. Google it if you don't believe me. Alternatively, keep on kidding yourself that the long term unemployed are all drunken bums who don't want to work. And hope that one day when you're older it doesn't happen to you.

[SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter]

BaldricksTurnip Well, if you're a militant then the majority of people in this country must be too, because last time I checked most people don't vote Tory.

[expatinscotland]

So you want such people around the most vulnerable people, cubed? You are happy with schemers and thugs round kids in school and old people in care homes?

[ParsingFancy]

Thanks for describing your voluntary work, btw, HSS. I've always strongly believed that that appropriate and genuine voluntary work can make a difference to employability, while (if carefully chosen) not affecting the existence of paid jobs, so it's lovely to see that borne out.

I used to do voluntary work when I first became too ill for my full-time job. I'm not yet as well as I was then, but I've looked into starting again – but it turns out under new regulations I'd have to register it with the DWP even if the voluntary stuff was less than an hour a week. And the paperwork and dealing-with-DWP-hassle would almost certainly end up being more work than the work. So I'm actually not going to do it.

[DumDum32]

heySS r u telling me ppl who qualify as teachers, Dr's, accountant etc would take up a staking shelf job in tesco/poundland? if these ppl r not expected to do so then y should any1 else. it's about having a choice & this government is taking that choice away from individuals.

I totally agree with other that is another hideous scheme to exploit people!

[usualsuspect]

Some people would be happy to get a shelf stacking job if they were paid a wage to do it.


There won't be any bloody paid shelf stacking jobs though will they, if employers can get Labour for nowt.

[ParsingFancy]

Yep, DumDum, it's long been known that it's better for the whole economy for teachers and accountants to be, well, teaching and accounting.

The reason jobseekers used to have, IIRC, 6 months during which they could be picky, before they had to take any job or else, wasn't to be nice to the jobseekers: it was to do what was good for the economy.

[cubedmelon]

expat who mentioned thugs? Are you suggesting that people in receipt of JSA are thugs?

The point I am making is that there are certain people who could work but choose not to and I welcome them having the choice of either doing some work or not getting their benefit.

I did also say that one size does not fit all and there are some instances where this system wont work and will let people down. I know if my children grow up and for whatever reason have to claim JSA for a long period of time, for their own good I would encourage them to undertake some sort of work.

[expatinscotland]

You say they are people who manipulate things, cubed, that sounds kind of low-life to me. You'd be happy with people who are that way round vulnerable people?

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

I'm very against this. I think that if people are going to work for a company, they should do so for proper wages. Not government benefits.

It's a horrible, cynical scheme that provides what is essentially dressed-up slave labour for unscrupulous companies. I'm willing to bet that the employees of the companies will suffer in the long-run too - less job security in a company with slave-labourers on their books.

[DumDum32]

I think it would be good for economy for people to be in paid jobs & not be exploited by companies under this workfare melarchy!

[Minifingers]

I have no problem with the government providing work for the unemployed, paid at minimum wage. It need not be work that is particularly meaningful, and can go on until the unemployed person finds a job they would rather do.

Unpaid work experience on the other hand needs to be relevant, and time limited.

[cubedmelon]

expat they are bleeding a flawed system dry - yes. Manipulative - maybe towards the system but being manipulative towards the system doesnt mean they are going to bash someone over the head for money does it? Thuggish - no and I havent once said they are.

You will draw your conclusions about this new plan based on the people and circumstances in your life and me in mine.

I wont change my mind. I also think, although its slim, there is more chance of gaining employment whilst getting some work experience for your JSA than an employer knocking your door and offering you a job. You've gotta be in it to win it. Frame of mind and all that and when I was out of work I started to fall into a trap of being comfortable and maybe withdrawn. I volunteered in the end and it boosted my confidence immensely.

As ive said it wont work for everyone but it would have helped me feel better and I stand by what I said about if my children are in that position I would certainly encourage them to do this sort of thing.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

[garlicbaguette]

I'm too upset to read the whole thread yet

In America, people are regularly laid off so their employers can get them back on workfare. State departments have been particularly guilty of this.

Firms get a payout for each placement they take on. They get free staff - paid from taxes - with no liability for employment rights, and you nice taxpayers give them a cheque for getting free staff. If they keep their free staff for more than six weeks, you give them another handout of between £2k and £6k.

Still think it makes sense?

[TheHammaconda]

This is just wrong for so many reasons, it makes me so angry.

I cannot for life of me see why anyone would consider it a good idea. It depresses real wage rates, reduces the demand for labour, reduces aggregate demand, lowers the government's potential tax revenue, does nothing to actually improve the work opportunities available for the unemployed, does very little to improve the occupational mobility of the unemployed and further stigmatises and alienates the unemployed.

Of the 1.14million people that have been referred to the Work Programme only 168,000 have gone on to work for 6 months. 14.7%. What a fucking joke.

[DameFanny]

I may be a bit behind the thread, but has anyone mentioned yet that people can be sanctioned for not attending a work placement because they couldn't afford to travel to the town it was in?

[garlicbaguette]

You're right, Fanny They do all sorts of illogical shit. On a thread earlier this week, somebody told how their DS had to go to placement interview at the same time as they were due to sign. Neither party would change his appointment. You get sanctioned for not going to the interview. You get sanctioned for not attending your signing. He got sanctioned.

[TheHammaconda]

DameFanny & Garlic that is ridiculous