Work for dole

[ReallyTired]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7514513.stm

I think that proposals like these are long over due. Although I think that if you make people work full time for their benefits they won't have time to look for job.

Prehaps they should work three days a week and look for a job two days a week.

There are people who for good reasons cannot work full time, but certainly could do something part time.

[Twinklemegan]

Agreed. 'Tis worse for the unemployed though. Especially when they're spending money they haven't got going to those interviews (not everyone can claim JSA and not everyone gets their expenses) which are wasting their time. And also when they're being accused of being wilfully unemployed when actually they're banging their head against a brick wall.

[Loriycs]

That happens to everyone im afraid, not just the unemployed. But yes i agree there is no excuse for it.

[Twinklemegan]

I think perhaps what I'm thinking of is if the Government considers you're volunteering in a job that you should be paid for. Again this may have changed - I can't even remember how it came up, I think when DH was signed off sick before we realised we were ineligible for any benefits. But I seem to remember that the type of volunteering I wanted to do - basically working for free for experience - was a big no no.

Lorycs - I don't doubt there are people like that. But it works both ways. The amount of interviews DH attended which were a complete waste of time! They were just going through the motions - lo and behold they just milked everyone's ideas and then appointed the internal candidate. That really really pisses people off! Not to mention the amount of employers who can't even be bothered to acknowledge an application, or notify you of the outcome! It's appalling really and there is absolutely no excuse for it.

[Loriycs]

I remember a few years ago, being sent to meet people for interview from the jobcentre that were totally unsuitable for the job. Either that, or they deliberately behaved in a manner that would put any employer off. My boss used to say that they had to attend interviews to keep their dole money but they knew how to aviod actually getting the job!!needless to say they were paid their travelling expenses too.

[TwoIfBySea]

Oh don't get me started on agencies Twinklemegan! That is an entire thread itself. The job centres really should get their fingers out and become more career centres where people can get proper advice and help from enthusiastic staff who aren't there to fill out forms. (Sorry but this is from my experience!)

You can volunteer for as many hours as you like as long as you can turn up for an interview or start a job at short notice and if on job seekers you need to still be actively looking for work. As long as you aren't being paid anything other than expenses (which you have to tell them about anyway) then there should be no problem. As you said it is good on the old cv and can lead to a proper job.

[Twinklemegan]

I don't disagree with a lot of what's being said here. But I do have difficulty with the assumption that because there are job vacancies out there, if you don't have a job it's because you don't want one. Having been married to my DH for 9 years I know categorically that this is not true. I said it all earlier, but really employers do discriminate very unfairly against many people going for jobs, and I genuinely think they need a kick up the backside before we stick the boot into the JSA claimants themselves. And the Jobcentres really are completely useless - IME this applies particularly if you do have skills and you do want to work - they just don't know what to make of you.

Also do bear in mind that many advertised vacancies are not even real jobs. They come from agencies touting for business.

[Twinklemegan]

My understanding was that it isn't possible to volunteer whilst on benefits because your benefits get cut. Has that changed? I always thought it was madness because it prevented people from getting work experience that could help them get a job. A classic example of what I was talking about earlier.

[TwoIfBySea]

Loriycs, there are those of us who already do that - which is what I totally agree with. If you are not working, you should volunteer, not just for the community and to help others but for what it gives yourself. Perhaps had the government been actually thinking about this properly they would have done something to address the fact there is a huge shortage of volunteers.

And although I fit in to the first line of your comment I hope you don't think I am flaming your pov! Actually I realise how many people never work, have never worked and never want to work. I don't quite understand that mentality but there is a section of society who have everything in place that should enable them to get a fairly good job but they don't want to do it for x, y, z. I helped out at a training centre trying to get teens into work - they all wanted highly paid, 9 to 5 jobs. They didn't want shifts or to have to put any effort in. It was very discouraging to see them, I did tell them they should be thankful they weren't having to do YTS jobs. Now they really were awful!

[TwoIfBySea]

"Just that we have all been faced with the same choices of fun vs money and make babies with teenage lover vs study for a degree."

Sorry I didn't do either of those - I was too busy working at the time!

[findtheriver]

I agree CoteDAzur.
It seems impossible to present this pov without being flamed by individuals who are desperately trying to get off benefits and into work. Yes, of course there are plenty of genuine claimants, but it doesnt alter the fact that some people use benefits as a lifestyle choice. I'm sure we all know people who could look for work but choose not to. Just among the people living near me, there are a few lone mothers with kids at school all day who do NO work and are on benefits. I also know of a few couples where neither parent works. Yet the local job centre does have job vacancies. There are all kinds of reasons why people may choose to do this - probably the main one being that minimum wage jobs don't provide a standard of living significantly above living on benefits, which of course they should do. The expectation should be that every adult who is able to should live independently of the state. Why should some people be expected to work their arses off to enable other people the choice of not working? Makes no sense at all.
I have no problem with people being expected to carry out tasks while on benefits - apart from anything else it does provide structure to the day and helps people get back into the mindset of working alongside other people. People can become totally deskilled when they are long term unemployed.
And before I get flamed - no, I repeat, I am not talking about genuine claimants who are actually unable to work. I am talking about those who choose not to.

[Loriycs]

i absolutely agree with CoteDAzur. There are alot of non employed benefit claimants with kids at school and alot of time on their hands. It would good to see some of that time spent helping others in need, ie the elderly (Shopping, gardening, housework etc) or volunteer driving which is much in demand, or by registering as childminders. It would helping others in the community in return for the help they receive.Until they manage to find suitable employment.

[CoteDAzur]

I don't know your life in detail, Godzilla. My comment was more in the direction of those who don't work because they wouldn't be better off working than their present sitution as getting the benefits for being SAHMs.

It is safe to assume that quite a lot of benefit claimants will be looking for work with renewed fervor after "work for dole" is introduced, so it might be an idea to jump the cue now.

[GodzillasBumcheek]

Oh, wow, so we aren't seriously looking for a job now?

That must be why DH applies for every litter picking/ bin emptying/ shelf filling job that comes along then. FYI a few hours a week community service would not only be quite enjoyable to some people, but also would hardly prevent anyone from working on the side if they really wanted to. Anyone dishonest enough to do this would just arrange the hours they worked around the community service, which was why i assumed the only sensible course would be working full time, ie: a job.

Twinklemegan - i know!

[CoteDAzur]

My understanding is that the proposed plan of "work for dole" is not full-time work. It is several hours here and there of community work (help the elderly, pick the weeds, etc) that is meant to (1) instill the discipline of going to work in people who haven't worked for a long time, and (2) prevent people from working on the side without declaring it.

It could easily be "jobs that nobody else wants to do", though. Remember, you are supposed to want to leave the benefit system and go get a real job. At the moment, a lot of benefit claimants (including some on this thread) feel that they are better off not working. Introduction of "work for dole" will change that for many, which is a good thing.

One probable outcome will be that shortly after the introduction of this system, many benefit claimants will be applying for the same jobs at the same time. It might be an idea to jump ahead of the crowd and seriously look for a job now.

[Twinklemegan]

But Godzilla, if benefits claimants were to be given a job can't you already hear the indignant exclamations - "how can they just be given a job, I had to work for mine!" I can just see it now. The fact is that all these people who are complaining secretly want to keep people on benefits, and those on the minimum wage for that matter, down there at the bottom where they belong. That is the only possible explanation for the status quo - so many things could be done to help if anybody actually cared.

[GodzillasBumcheek]

Of course it's reasonable to expect to work for the money you live on - but wages and hours need to be fair. To expect people to work 40 hours or more a week doing jobs nobody else wants to do, you should not have to do it on 'how much the government says to need to survive'.

I am not arguing the toss on whether capable benefits claimants should work for their money - just how much they should be working for. And as stated previously by myself and others (thanks divastrop) if there is a job there, and enough money to pay for it to be done - WHY ISN'T IT A WAGE as opposed to 'benefits'.

As for my going 'off topic', i believe that's what conversations do. My recent comments were very on-topic to the posts they replied to, if you would care to back-read.

[Twinklemegan]

And btw I agree with Divastrop. I'm amazed anybody doesn't agree.

[Twinklemegan]

Sorry to continue the hijack, but I need to respond to TwoIfBySea.

I don't think you're being nosy TIBS. It makes a huge change to chat with someone who doesn't just dismiss me as a moaning wife of yet another irresponsible NRP. The children are grown up - one has a family of their own.

The CSA have really got their claws into DH and they won't let go - ditto his ex. It is utterly unfair as he has done the very best he can to comply with them and their impossible demands. It is not an exaggeration to say that DH and I have spent the past 10 years living in fear of the State - I really didn't think that was possible in a civilised country.

And you're right it's appalling the CSA is wasting all this time on people who want to provide for their children. I know as well as the next person that there are many NRPs out there who a genuinely shirking their responbilities, financially and otherwise, yet they are just too much hard work so they're left alone. It makes me sick.

[divastrop]

yes-its reasonable to get paid wages to do a job.

benefits are not wages.if there is work out there which needs to be done and there is nobody to do it,then create real jobs of that work and give the jobs to those on JSA.

[CoteDAzur]

Godzilla - Nobody expects you to time travel, but if I may come back to the subject of the thread for a minute, you will soon be expected to actually work for the money you live on.

And I think that is entirely reasonable.

[findtheriver]

I agree Godzilla, but then we're all in the same boat aren't we - none of us can turn the clock back.
I'm not sure of the quality of careers advice these days (on the face of it there seems to be a lot more support out there, connexions etc, but then on the other hand you see most teenagers being shoved towards degree courses which is ludicrous!). However, I feel sure it can't be worse than in my day. I don't remember getting ANY sensible advice from anyone, teachers or parents. I went to University and studied a subject I loved to a very high level, but I was motivated more by love of a subject and getting good enough grades to get in, rather than any long term planning.

[GodzillasBumcheek]

"Just that we have all been faced with the same choices of fun vs money and make babies with teenage lover vs study for a degree."

True, but now i am older and wiser i can't really go back and do things differently can i? I can teach my kids not to do the same thing, and try to live the rest of my life as best i can. Unless someone's got plans for a time machine what else can i do? And even then after 13 years of marriage i'd tell you to feck off rather than change it.

Actually there are probably alot of very naive teenagers who don't think of how to support themselves/their family as they get older. It sure wasn't something on anyone I knew's minds. I was encouraged to pursue a career in art and design even though now i know there is barely any work in that area in our town (some small sign-making companies and thats about it).

Teenagers should not have to make firm decisions about their future until they are mature enough to realise the consequences.
It have been more sensible for people to point out that you need to start on the bottom rung of the career ladder to get the better jobs - and what those bottom rung jobs may lead to. That would have been far more helpful and life-influencing than what i got, which was some teacher saying i had could work in package design and that i needed A-Level Art and Design and blah blah blah (can't even remember now ), and thinking she'd done her job.

[TwoIfBySea]

Wait, so the dcs are how old? I don't see how she would then get back payments? If the CSA didn't contact your dp at the time then how can they get involved?

God useless articles.

Sorry to hear that Twinklemegan and I sound like I am being real nosy but they are wasting their time on things that happened a decade ago while not chasing up current cases properly. Like single mothers all getting tarred with the same brush as the ones who do it "deliberately" it is women like your dp's ex who also give us a bad name as money-grabbing wenches!

[Twinklemegan]

The problem is that there's no proof. This was all years ago when DH was naive about the CSA thing and I hadn't met him. DH was also in and out of work a lot in that time, sometimes he couldn't afford to pay her much. I know he used to buy things for the DCs though, clothes and stuff, but again no proof.

The CSA claims they made an assessment over a decade ago. DH got no letter at that time and they apparently never ever chased it up. It was only with a "routine" case review 5 years later that DH found out about their supposed involvement. The ex hadn't contacted them to chase the money that whole time so I'm guessing she never knew or asked about the assessment either. Yet now, 15 years later with the DCs grown up she decides she wants the money.

[TwoIfBySea]

Ach I had hoped as well. Funny that as soon as I saw it this morning you and hugh were the first people I thought of!

Well, it is a move in the right direction. What did they say they were going to become involved to force your dp to pay something else? As long as he has proof of money going to her then she hasn't a leg to stand on in getting any "back" payments she thinks she can get. So if he can show he has transfered money or something as a regular payment then truthfully she can't get more that way.