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.

expat - So you think I am 'stalking' you because I answered several of your posts on this thread?

It is disingenous of you to suggest it is somehow psychotic to reply to posts on a public forum.

sitdownpleasegeorge - I agree with you.

By sitdownpleasegeorge on Tue 22-Jul-08 15:07:51

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.

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.

Other mothers can look after the children whilst the mothers do the community service work. A lot of us do domestic work with children around who just have to lump it if we're too busy to see to their needs. Many of us work from home and also keep an eye on children. I am sure it is workable. You could even have buggy pushing through parks with your litter bag on your shoulder and pick up the litter as you go whilst the baby is with you or strapped to your front as many women classically work around the world.

Okay so how can someone poor leave the UK to seek a better life abroad? My uncle and aunt managed it in 60s because there was a very cheap scheme to emigrate to Australia. I am not sure what schemes there are abroad like that nowadays but plenty of poor UK people used them. My grandfather paid the passage to Canada for three alcoholic brothers he was supporting in the 1920s and 1930s so that was a relative helping out. Other people manage to hitch hike abroad. My children seem pretty good at travelling around abroad without paying very much and there are some cheap fares. If you work weekends and during the week in cleaning jobs I bet you can save up enough for the cheaper flight say to Bulgaria to start a new life or Spain.

riven - I don't think anyone here has a problem with the benefits system as a safety net for people going through a rough patch, or disabled people having a hard time finding work and having to care for a disabled child like yourself. Such misfortune can happen to anyone and it is the duty of the society as a whole to care for the unfortunate among us.

However, there is a significant population of benefits recipients who are able to work but choose not to, or work without declaring it and get benefits on the side. My understanding is that this proposal is aimed at them.

expat

I'm disappointed that you interpreted my comparison of the way things were with the current situation as a "things were much better in the good old days" statement.

I suspect that unless you are a woman of little brain you know jolly well I was stating how harsh and unfair the old system of "social welfare support" was in my comparison with the current benefits system.

I can't see that anyone else has arrived at the same interpretation of my comments.

Please re-read the rest of my post and tell me that it's sooo unfair/unreasonable/ill considered.

You then drag up the old chestnut about claimants (you only mention women in this context but remember there is such a thing as male prostitution too) being forced into prostitution. Get a grip woman, if we exempted people from active fighting service on the basis of their beliefs, waaaaaay back in WWII when we were a country at war FGS, there is no way people will be obliged to work in prostitution under the proposed scheme.

There has also been scaremongering about the American scheme and its faults. This is the U.K., not the USA. We are very different and the educated back-room boffins in government are acutely aware of this and its implications for the U.K. No-one would be forced to take work in a slaughterhouse as there are so many valid excuses that could be trotted out to avoid this. Can we get a grip on reality here and stop hypothesising about stuff that will simply not happen.

(Loving Xenia's more practical situation of buggy pushing whilst litter picking).

One more fly in the ointment however, about not including parents of pre-school age children, is that this effectively encourages state dependant single parents to continue to have additional children in order to give them an automatic exclusion from the work schemes if they don't want to work.

"Some will be glad to be out of the house being useful and happy to improve their local environment"

I think you'll probably find that those who are happy to improve their local enviroment are already out there doing something "useful" things.........

I am sure that expat is a bright woman. She has stated earlier that she is working poor. this sort of scheme would not apply to either her or her family.

What I don't understand is why she is happy for some people to do nothing and her husband to work his arse off in very low paid employment. It seems to be the height of unfairness. The working poor work harder than almost any other section of society.

Employers tend to pick the best person for a job rather than deciding because this man has a family he needs a bigger salary. People are paid what they are worth to a company. Competition like this helps the ecomnony. However it is hard on people are born with a low IQ.

The problem is that someone with moderate learnng difficulties will never command a high salary, but understandably wants/ ends up wtih a family. An intelligent single mother who has never worked has to start from the bottom like anyone else. However in time their income will rise.

Giving someone in that kind of situation a top up is better for everyone's dignity than the family doing nothing and being on benefits. It also stops boredom which is a common cause of crime.

Sitdownpleasegeorge - I agree with that about women having children. I have been part of a number of conversations where young women have been asked what their ambitions are (in my line of work). Many(!!!) of them have stated that their ambition is to have a baby. I think many of them are secure in the knowledge that the state will support them once they have the child.

People learn to play the system and it is worrying to think that people might bring a child into the world to avoid a short period of employment.

w/r litter picking and Xenia's ''and the fatter ones could lose weight and wouldn't be able to buy junk food''

...and the thinner, hungry ones could no doubt supplement their diets with a few choice morsels from out of the bins. Brilliant! Where do I sign up?

It think it would be financially impractical and cruel to make a single mum with a tiny baby do full time work.

Nurseries in the UK are very expensive. I also think that newborn baby needs its mother. Britain does not yet have comprehensive after school care yet so we are long way off from having cheap nursery provison.

However there has to be a middle ground between letting someone sit on their bum until their eldest is 16 and forcing those with small babies to go out to work full time. Prehaps we need to build up the hours gradually ie. 10 hours a week when the youngest child is eligible for a free nursery place.

Prehaps we need to think creatively how to solve problems and see what other countries do. Ie. the Netherlands where they are not quite as ruthless and harsh as the USA.

I also think we need to build people's self esteem and confidence. Get people to believe that they can do more with their lives and be happier.

"It think it would be financially impractical and cruel to make a single mum with a tiny baby do full time work."

I fully agree with that, but how do you deal with those who are having the babies in the knowledge that they will be looked after by the state? I know it doesn't guarantee a council house anymore, but I see so many youngsters with babies it is frightening!

It's very unlikely mothers with small babies will work (although I always did and it's benefited not hindered me and the children hugely by the way) as I think this will at least at first apply to people claiming job seekers' allowance and they will only be forced to work full time in their second year of claim.

And many things can be done whilst you hold a baby, we all know that having held one and done countless things at home from wedding the garden to picking up litter to cleaning a house.

Figroll "I fully agree with that, but how do you deal with those who are having the babies in the knowledge that they will be looked after by the state? I know it doesn't guarantee a council house anymore, but I see so many youngsters with babies it is frightening! "

AFAIK it still moves you up the list quite dramatically. Without babies you may never reach the top of the list in many areas and people are understandibly unwilling to wait years.

actually xenia, it is a good point. I styarted volunteer work with 3month old in tow and eventually that led me to paid employment, albeit in a totally different field to before baby. But it opened up new opportunities for me.

"Prehaps we need to build up the hours gradually ie. 10 hours a week when the youngest child is eligible for a free nursery place."

ahh - yes - enough hours to not qualify for Tax Credits - but too many to get your IS.....so struggle even more financially.

sitdown, because you brought up the past to justify why the system needs changing now.

why?

completely unecessary. so what if people had more morals and restraint in the past? we're talking about NOW.

'What I don't understand is why she is happy for some people to do nothing and her husband to work his arse off in very low paid employment. It seems to be the height of unfairness. The working poor work harder than almost any other section of society.'

I don't operate under the assumption that life is any way fair, what would be nice is to see a bit more equality in the tax structure.

And, as a working poor family, we're really no different from anyone who has to claim benefits - we're a redundancy away. We have no savings or pension. We don't own property. We are at the mercy of the Tax Credits Office getting it right.

The working poor work harder here and keep less because they are taxed more on their earnings - they are now taxed at 20% on incomes up to £36,000 once past the personal threshhold, which is too low.

They pay more NI, too, as Xenia pointed out.

"I don't operate under the assumption that life is any way fair, what would be nice is to see a bit more equality in the tax structure."

I 100% agree with you expat. I been hit very badly by the governant getting rid of the 10p tax band. Anyone whose income is in the 10p tax bracket has a low income. The LSA who is divored and in her 50s who looks after my son at after school is poor. Yet Gordon Brown decided to up her tax. She can't claim child tax credits because her have grown up.

She has no property and has to live on approximately 11K.

"And, as a working poor family, we're really no different from anyone who has to claim benefits - we're a redundancy away. We have no savings or pension. We don't own property. We are at the mercy of the Tax Credits Office getting it right. "

You are completely different. Your family has not been sitting on their bums for two years.

The welfare state is designed to help families when someone loses their job. What its not designed is to support a healthy person for life. I am sure that your husband would find a job within two years.

The issue is with those who completely abuse the system for years on end. Not those who claim benefit in time of need for a short period of their life.

But living out here, I can actually see where some end up unemployed for 2 years.

It's not that hard to do when you live in a rural area. And it's not so easy to 'just move', especially if you're poor already, have nothing saved up and no means to for deposits and whatnots, especially if you're lucky enough to be a council/HA tenant (we're private renters), or if you have transport or childcare issues (and yes, including kids in school).

I guess for me I don't trust the same government that took away the 10p band to administer welfare reform wisely and with a good long-term plan. They don't seem to be very capable of either wisdom or long-term thinking.

but you know what - if you look at the figures - we're actually talking about a pretty small number of people that this is "targetting"

"819,300 people claiming benifit
29 million people in employment
60 million total population last census"

"There are 68 thousand people on job seekers that have been claiming for more than 2 years of thoses 68 thousand - 16 thousand have been claiming for 5 years. There are 2.64 million people on incapacity benifit - I cant find the break down figures for those with mental illness."

(from further up the thread)

So all the "masses" of people sitting around on their arses not making any effort actually amounts to not very many - as is FREQUENTLY stated, the vast majority of people on benefits are not "long term scroungers".

And tbh I think a scheme like this would make sod all difference to that small minority who are on it long as term as they don't give a shit, or are probably also receiving money from elsehwere (cash in hand.......)

I look at the same way I look at public transport: put the measures in place to make it a real option for everyone and then break out the stick. Hell, you may not even need the sodding stick if you look to that first.

But otherwise, it's just putting your arse before your eyes.

Expat, if you ever stand for election I would vote for you. Actually I would campaign for free

And tbh I think a scheme like this would make sod all difference to that small minority who are on it long as term as they don't give a shit, or are probably also receiving money from elsehwere (cash in hand.......)
I agree, thoses that want to get out and work would be hindered by the process and paper shifting, they would be scared stiff and if they had children the children may well suffer (home alone ill but mother goes out to earn dole money springs to mind).

The CSA was another great overhall in the early 90's and look what happens with the CSA - those nrp that want to pay and do pay get chased every year by the csa thoses nrp that didn't pay, dont want to pay will still not pay and if the CSA ever catch up with them lie, change their job or work cash in hand to stop the payments happening.

"819,300 people claiming benefit
29 million people in employment
60 million total population last census"

"There are 68 thousand people on job seekers that have been claiming for more than 2 years of those 68 thousand - 16 thousand have been claiming for 5 years. There are 2.64 million people on incapacity benefit - I cant find the break down figures for those with mental illness."

Depends if you believe the figures produced by the government - I believe that there is a massive cover up by shifting people onto different types of benefits.