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.

'So all our taxes will go up to pay for these schemes.'

And to pay bureaucrats to administer them.

Gordon Clown's fav: create more bureaucracy!

Just like the £582m it cost the taxpayer last year to administer tax credits (not including the £1bn in errors made).

ok,the CSA only exist to harrass hard-working,repsonsible,NRP's.

they dont exist when it comes to tossers who dont care about their children

xenia-most mothers on benefits also clean their own homes/childrens' puke/shit etc etc.

i dont see your point?

But at the moment, street cleaning is done by paid workers.

So we can make them all redundant and get them to do it for benefits instead can we?

Sooper.

What a pity we can't make lawyers redundant and then get them to do their work for benefits as well.

Divastrop - that's more like it. Fictitious arrears comprising more than 60% of one's total income anyone?

Xenia what a brilliant idea to leave the children of lone parents with resentful underpaid workers who may know nothing about child development. And elderly confused people as well. Let's leave them with people who resent being with them and after all if they get beaten up, who cares, they probably deserve it what with their feckless relatives.

I would like to see long term benefit claimants given a choice about what they do. Any scheme needs to make the person feel positive and prehaps have a bonus for good attendence/ quality of work.

Some of the mumnetters who are on long term benefits are extremely bright people, and have a lot to offer. It is a tragic waste of their lives.

Last night there was the programme "Can't read, Can't write" on channel four. There were six adults who were completely illiterate. They were attending a literacy class with Phil Beadle once a week, but many of them had no one to help them with their home work. Wouldn't be fanastic if some one who is long term unemployed could give them the daily input that they need.

Hmm the problem with that RT, is that a disproportionate number of long term unemployed will themselves have literacy problems, which will in itself have contributed to their long-term unemployment.

And helping an adult to read is a skill that you need to be trained for. I am a literate person, but I wouldn't have the slightest idea what teaching techniques should be used to support an adult to learn to read. Any volunteer or worker would need to be trained to do that. And that takes money. So more taxes.

The person would not be a teacher. It would be no different to being a parent and listening to a child read. The illiterate adult would still have to attend a class. All the helper would do is help with homework for twenty minutes a day.

Parents all over the country listen to their children read everyday. To become a good reader requires a hell of a lot of practice. It does not require a qualified teacher to listen to reading.

Doesn't matter what posters think on here. It's going to happen so they'll just have to get used to it. I can't imagine Labour will make it work very well but at least it's a start.

I doubt these people will be of such competence we can sack the normal street cleaners. I would imagine it will just be an added extra and will help ensure those who are working all day and claiming benefits won't be able to do so amongst other advantages.

Quite amusing a labour party has thought of it. They ceased being left wing when they got in after Major I suppose when they stole the tories' policies to do so.

It does, however, require a modicum of literacy RT.

Which is disproportionately lacking in the long term unemployed.

No it doesn't matter what any of us think. It will happen and our society will get worse and more of us will be angry and frightened and not trust each other and those of us who are making loadsamoney can sneer at the unwaged or help them with charity and be sneered at in their turn, and those who are making just above benefit levels can fear them and hate them because one false step and they might be plunged down with them.

What a fantastic social vision.

Why do you think they won't be competent Xenia? Because anyone who is unemployed for any length of time is obviously too incompetent even to pick up rubbish?

LittleBella, not all long term unemployed are illiterate. All you need is the person to have GCSE English or equivalent. Its not rocket science listening to someone read the adult education equivalent of the Oxford Reading Tree.

Your volenteer could spend four hours a day listening to people read. If you spend twenty minutes with each person and allowed 10 minutes for breaks/ toilet/ being social then one person could easily help 8 people in a day.

The other thing I would say, is that some unemployed people have every right to their benefits having paid taxes and NI for years and years and years. Compare DH who went to university for a year, had a break in NI contributions and consequently was entitled to big fat zero. This despite paying his taxes and NI for 30 years. They are not all scroungers - there are many reasons for being unemployed. This policy is utter pants.

RT, it wouldn't be a volunteer though would it?

Volunteers practically run the important caring functions of this country, let's not devalue their contribution by using that term for pressganged people who don't want to be there.

Why does it matter what the reason is that you're unemployed? The principle is fair because everyone in their second year unemployed with some exceptions, will have to work. NI was never a fund set aside in hour name for when you are off sick .We could also abolish NI / merge it with income tax if we wanted to be more transparent about things of course.

Not all who work for dole will not want to be there. Some will be glad to be out of the house being useful and happy to improve their local environment. It could work very well. We'll wait and see.

I was just responding to the comment about this will take work away from people in work. I don't think it will because it won't work very well and I suspect these people will do extra work rather than work that others would otherwise have been paid for but it's possible.

But if you are working, picking up rubbish, then you are not unemployed.

You are working. And therefore, should be paid wages. Not benefits.

What use is extended maternity leave rights to 52 weeks if the majority of women are in low wage part time (ie easy replaced) or temp employmenmt (I'm a temp and stil don't have such luxuries) OR are self employed?

actually, I tick all those boxes with my 3 jobs which don't give me any rights to benefits. Yet I still support a welfare state based on egalitatrian principles.

By iheartsunsets on Tue 22-Jul-08 15:34:51
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.

When i had my children i was working. i was a well paid career professional. my partner was also working and had a decent income. we were reasonably well off.
unfortunatly i just couldn't take anymore beatings so i left.
because i was forced to move 70 miles away i simply couldn't continue in my job as A) he would have been able to find me and B) we were miles away from the support network of carer's and family to help with childcare.

unfortunatly because my son has SN it is not as simple as just finding a term time job. there is no such thing as regular school hours with him as he is excluded regularly.

But hey i am just socially irresponsible. i should have stayed with my partner and allowed my children to continue watching the beatings.

Iheart - yu really do have your head up your arse.
put down the daily mail and look out your window. you might see that not every single mum claiming benefits has a grug dealing boyfreind and a plasma tv.

There are so many things in our society that need fixing, and I do believe this is a key area.

Of course it's right to ensure that claimants are compelled to work in order to receive benefits.

The schemes will need a lot of safeguards though - it#d be nice to ensure that the work would take the form of community work rather than giving employers some free labout.

"Of course it's right to ensure that claimants are compelled to work in order to receive benefits.

The schemes will need a lot of safeguards though - it#d be nice to ensure that the work would take the form of community work rather than giving employers some free labout."

Why of course? Why don't you believe people should be paid wages for the work they do?

The whole point of the scheme, eventually, is to give employers free labour. It is not to save money, because these schemes cost more to run than paying out dole money.

Would all of you be happy to be paid benefits instead of wages for the work you do?

I wouldn't.

It's a free market. If people want to earn more then need to find ways to earn more. We have had a long tradition of working for benefits in the UK going back to the Victorian work houses and parish relief. Before then people starved if they didn't have work so all this state provision is a lot more than people used to get and a lot more than many get abroad. If people don't like it they can leave as loads of people do around the globe every year.

Why should people not be paid wages for work they do? They are to be paid for it. I certainly don't approve of a minimum wage however.

This will be a very popular vote winner for Labour. It will not be enough to stop Cameron getting in next time but will make it easier for him to introduce something similar. It's not very onerous:

"Mr Purnell told the Commons he aimed to reduce those on benefit by a million over the next seven years. Claimants will have to carry out four weeks' community work once they have been unemployed for more than a year."

In other words you can get 52 weeks of benefits and you only work 4 weeks of that - not going to be too hard.

"After two years, they will be ordered to
work full-time in the community. "

The latter part will be more effective.

"Claimants will have to carry out four weeks' community work once they have been unemployed for more than a year." In other words you can get 52 weeks of benefits and you only work 4 weeks of that - not going to be too hard. After two years, they will be ordered to work full-time in the community."

Its not like they are forcing everyone as soon as they start to claim. If you cant get a job after a year then you either aren't looking hard enough or not willing to work at any job. Some expect a well paid high level job to land in their lap rather than start at the bottom and work up.

The reason the government are doing it this way rather than create the "placements/community working" as jobs is that most people wouldnt apply if they were jobs - there are always jobs available if you are not picky.

We do need an overhaul, too many people stay on benefits through choice and have no intention of working whilst they are being given money. Why should they not give something back to the state yet expect the state to support them week in week out.

I do think Cameron will crack down even further when he gets in but at least this is a start.

it's not a totally free market Xenia. There are restrictions, for good reason.