Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Work for dole

785 replies

ReallyTired · 18/07/2008 18:13

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.

OP posts:
Bramshott · 22/07/2008 10:11

Litter picking - no, urggh, absolutey not! Arent' there enought teenagers with asbos to do that [joke]!

But a sensible well-thought out plan of training combined with voluntary work that might help them to gain useful skills sounds like a good idea.

ReallyTired · 22/07/2008 12:30

Bramshott I agree with you. Otherwise it would be like a chain gang and very negative for everyone involved.

I think that there needs to be different options for different people. Ironically the governant got rid of a scheme called Remploy.

OP posts:
hearnoevil · 22/07/2008 12:53

"Prisoners (...) sued when they were forced to do work they didn't want to do, they said it was against their human rights. By that token, how is it okay to force people who are not criminals to do work?"

but surely you would not be forcing them to work. you would be giving them the choice of work and receive money or don't work and receive no money.

expatinscotland · 22/07/2008 13:47

Cote, get a life besides stalking people.

LongLiveGreenElizabeth · 22/07/2008 13:55

I lose no sleep over these lifestyle scroungers (Me and kerrymum!?? both scrounging of the Irish state, so phew relax )

MPs, quangos, john lewis lists, the royal family etc, opposite of Freehold(??)... people paying rent to the duchy of westminster because the hallway and the roof over their flat belongs to him. Those are RICH people milking the system. That makes me far more angry. But those rich people are the first to slag off the poor who work the system.

But when you see pictures of people dying of starvation and homeless on the other side of the World, don't you feel that true civilisation is caring about less well-off, less well-educated, and ........... less LUCKY! people?? I know I do. I'm feel more pride that my country's gov will look after its under privileged than I could ever feel resentment over lifestyle scroungers

mumfor1standmaybe2ndtime · 22/07/2008 14:00

I think that these moves are very long overdue. I am talking about people like my neighbours - drug dealers who live rent/council tax free and seem to have enough money for drugs, fags, drink and to run 2008 cars as well as subletting housing association houses.
I am also talking about my other neighbour who has a 3 storey 4 bed new build house worth over 250k and are living there rent free/council tax free and do not work. They seem to also have enough money for fags, drink and to run cars.
I work part time, dh works full time. Our car is off the road as it failed the mot, we can't afford another or to fix it. The only benefit we claim is child tax credit. We can't buy a house with a garden (we have no outside space at all at our current house)as we don't have 25k in the bank for a deposit.

So yes, it is time some people got off their lazy backsides and went to work for their benefita or got a job.
Why should my husband pay for lazy arse's rent as well as our own?

My Dad has just retired at 60. He has worked since he was 15. Only claimed dole once in his life from when he was made redundant. He recently tried to claim carers allowance as my mum is ill, and he was refused!

sitdownpleasegeorge · 22/07/2008 15:07

How times have changed.

When "the dole" was introduced most recipients would have been happy to have provided some labour in return for the money they received as it would have helped maintain their dignity in as much as they would be earning the money not the recipients of "charity".
Previously society did provide for some of the unfortunate but expected them to be grateful and beholden.
Contraception was not widely available and abstinence was generally the only way to limit family size so restraint was expected and people were supposed to live within their means and not have children they personally couldn't support. They were considered foolish/happy-go-lucky (rather than a couple still very much in love) if they had a large family with insufficient income to support them although there was obviously sympathy for the wives/mothers who would not necessarily have chosen to have as many children as they ended up with.

Fast forward to today and we seem to think that we have a right to the unemployment benefit money without question and the right to as many children as we can fund by whatever means, more benefits and a bigger council property if we produce a large family. Anyone who is working poor but increases the financial stresses on their family beyond say a couple of children does need to do a bit of reserach and reflection on the matter instead of permanently bemoaning the level of the minimum wage and the fact that they can't afford a week in Spain or whatever. Its the blame culture though isn't it, some folk think that they are not the author of their own misfortune, its the government/society/their parents/whoever.

IMHO the situation has swung too far in favour of the recipients and is abused by some people, such that the truly ill and other deserving individuals have to live on very low incomes because the social fund is extremely stretched by there being so many people claiming benefits instead of working when there are jobs available but they are considered beneath us.

If the initiative is targeted at the young NEETs who have no family responsibilies preventing them from working or at one parent out of 2 in a non-working household (leaving the other to cover childcare) then I for one am cautiously in favour of an initial scheme to try and instil the work ethic into a swathe of the population who just don't have it because it has somehow been lost from their family over the generations.

If we can substantially reduce the number of people claiming unemployment when they could be working instead, we could potentially cut the taxation bill imposed on employers and substitute a roughly revenue neutral increase to the minimum wage without squeals of financial pain from employers.

Having read over my post it all sounds terribly right wing I know and I'm surprised how basic common sense can come across as right wing views but things ain't working well at the moment are they, perhaps it's time for a radical shake up in the unemployment benefit(JSA) world to put right some of this country's problems.

Think about it, if the hoodies hanging around the shopping centre had to report for duty at some form of work, Mon-Fri, 9-5, there would be a lot less time for them to get into trouble and hopefully crime rates would drop. Perhaps more people would get help with addiction problems if this was out in the open as preventing them from functioning as an employable individual. You couldn't be moonlighting cash in hand on a building site if you had to be somewhere else during the average working day. Less availability of black market labour could drive wages up in some work places.

Any labour provided to employers under such a scheme would need to be paid for a discounted rate but not massively so, only by enough to compensate for hassle and training but GB nationals could be given priority over others if the the government wanted to reduce moaning over immigration statistics.

Lots of possibilities but we really need to re-educate a strata of the UK population about taking pride in working and ensuring that it pays fairly in comparison to receiving benefits.

iheartsunsets · 22/07/2008 15:18

How posters can justify people not working is beyond me

LittleBella · 22/07/2008 15:21

How posters can justify people not being paid wages for work, is beyond me.

If you work, you should get wages, not benefits, surely? Or am I missing something?

FAQ · 22/07/2008 15:23

"I am talking about people like my neighbours - drug dealers who live rent/council tax free and seem to have enough money for drugs, fags, drink and to run 2008 cars as well as subletting housing association houses.
I am also talking about my other neighbour who has a 3 storey 4 bed new build house worth over 250k and are living there rent free/council tax free and do not work. They seem to also have enough money for fags, drink and to run cars."

Well they're obviously cheating the system - so report them - and they'd find a way to cheat the system no matter how "good" it was.

iheart - because if you have 3 mouth to feed (not including your own) and bills to pay - working isn't always financially viable. I WOULD be worse off if I was to find a job now (and would struggle desperately during the school holidays as schemese for older children are in extremely short demand- there's one for the entire town.......)

expatinscotland · 22/07/2008 15:25

'perhaps it's time for a radical shake up in the unemployment benefit(JSA) world to put right some of this country's problems.'

And just at the time when levels of people claiming JSA are at a ten-year high as the economy continues to experience a downturn.

Yeah, that makes a lot of 'common sense'.

Monkeytrousers · 22/07/2008 15:26

Fuck me this is depressing and utterly barbaric.

It's the US policy. One woman was forced to walk 6 miles to and from work in a slaughterhopuse where she had a quota to fillin slitting 10 chiockens throats a minute just two weeks after giving birth.

iheartsunsets · 22/07/2008 15:27

Maybe they should reduce benefit to bring it in line with the minimum wage then

expatinscotland · 22/07/2008 15:28

'Previously society did provide for some of the unfortunate but expected them to be grateful and beholden.
Contraception was not widely available and abstinence was generally the only way to limit family size so restraint was expected and people were supposed to live within their means and not have children they personally couldn't support. They were considered foolish/happy-go-lucky (rather than a couple still very much in love) if they had a large family with insufficient income to support them although there was obviously sympathy for the wives/mothers who would not necessarily have chosen to have as many children as they ended up with. '

Those were the days, eh? When marital rape was legal, domestic abuse went unrecognised and unpunished, unwed mothers were sometimes forced to give up their babies for adoption, and lovely signs with warm sentiments like 'No blacks, no dogs, no Irish' were a not uncommon sight.

FAQ · 22/07/2008 15:28

and I could see people like my brother really being helped by this.

He was signed off work for 1 yr with stress and depression. But once he was deemed well enough to start looking for work he DID look only for specific types of job....

Why???

Because had he just taken any old job that came along the chances of him being signed off again were extremely high. No doubt as he was "fit" for work he would have been given less benefits because he refused to just take any old job.

Monkeytrousers · 22/07/2008 15:29

If the government want to target slackers, then atrget them. Troubel is, the sick and the most vulnerable will be the ones to suffer most - and women, especially singl;e women who have young kids - how suprising

and yet the same people who will be supporting this will also be complaining about crime and disorder with latchkey kids...

LittleMyDancingForJoy · 22/07/2008 15:29

hear hear sitdownpleasegeorge - I think the phrase 'I am cautiously in favour' sums up how I feel too.

I don't think lone parents or those with children under school age should or would be included in this scheme - but if an able bodied person with no family responsibilities is not in work, I don't see any harm in asking them to do some non commercial work in return for their benefits.

The question of the working poor and the minimum wage is of course linked to this debate, but the government is taking steps towards solving this. People on low incomes are better off under tax credits, and yes the system isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

And there seems to be some confusion over tax credits - tax credits are not a benefit, so when someone (can't remember who, sorry) was talking about the government having to top up the minimum wage through tax credits, well yes, that's exactly what they're for.

they're not a benefit, they are a rebate on tax for those on low incomes who have family responsibilities.

FAQ · 22/07/2008 15:31

PMSL Iheart - you have NO idea do you?? Really you don't.

I get £60.50 a week IS, I get £445 (or around that) CTC and I get £175 a month child benefits - that's £862 out of that I have to pay £400 rent, all other bills (apart from council tax which I do get the full amount paid for me) and feed myself and 3 DC (including one still in nappies).....

LittleMyDancingForJoy · 22/07/2008 15:31

MT do you really think that would happen in a country that has just extended maternity leave rights to 52 weeks?

Yes, this is a scheme similar to the US one. But we are not the US, we do things differently, we have different rights set firm in our society, and touting scare stories about the US doesn't really get us anywhere.

LittleMyDancingForJoy · 22/07/2008 15:32

expat how are those things you talk about - marital rape etc - linked to what sitdownpleasegeorge is talking about?

Monkeytrousers · 22/07/2008 15:32

"I don't think lone parents or those with children under school age should or would be included in this scheme"

That's not how it works.

If there are jobs to be had, why not just force them to work and opay them a decent wage...oh, but hang on, how do you force people to do that - you have to deprive them of any respect and give them slave wages. Oh, great idea!

FAQ · 22/07/2008 15:33

today I nearly had to make a decision between getting rid of a wasps nest in my house (30+ wasps in my kitchen and bathroom in the last 7 days), or having £50 spending money for our holiday in just under 2 weeks time - that's £50 for the entire week for 4 of us........

LittleMyDancingForJoy · 22/07/2008 15:34

What do you mean that's not how it works? The article I read specifically said this scheme would not apply to people with small children. There was no mention of lone parents, but I can't imagine that the childcare issue has escaped the government's thinking.

expatinscotland · 22/07/2008 15:34

'tax credits are not a benefit'

THEY ARE!

They're considered a 'public fund' and are means-tested.

If you are here on a visa that does not entitle you to 'recourse to public funds', then you cannot apply for them because they are a public fund.

iheartsunsets · 22/07/2008 15:34

Did anyone force you to have three children?

I would love another but we cant afford two so it looks like we will just have one.

You should have thought about how much it costs to clothe and feed three children
before having them instead of whingeing about it now.

Its called personal responsiblity.