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.

The problem with that idea is that the State does not have that many employment opportunities. Those of us quoting Marx would probably like this to change, but I don't see mass nationalisations happening anytime soon.

What they could do is to make people on benefit participate in community projects (cleaning parks, domestic help for the incapacitated, etc) for the number of hours that corresponds to the money they are getting. For most, this will not be full time work.

It will, however, help them get back in the habit of going to work, while still having the time to look for real work. It will also go a long way in eliminating the problem of benefits claimants working on the side in black economy.

What is not to like?

If people only have to work "for the number of hours that corresponds to the money they are getting" then that's fine. That would equate to 9 or 10 hours a week. Nothing not to like about that.

The trouble is that as I understood it, the proposal seems to involve forcing people to work full time ie for just over £1 an hour. And that is what I have a huge problem with.

But if people are to be made to do this community work, which I accept could be a good thing if they are paid a proper wage, then there is nothing at all stopping the State from employing them at the minimum wage. They would then be contracted out to the organisations concerned.

If the Government chooses not to employ these people but keep them on benefits, then I have to question the motives behind the policy. I think this is much more about winning votes from Daily Mail readers than anything to do with helping either the community or the unemployed.

Although, as someone else pointed out, that would nicely put them below the ridiculous 16 hour threshold for assistance with childcare costs. Nice touch.

If they are single mothers with kids at school and the hours are set appriopately then being below the threshold of getting getting assistance with childcare costs won't matter. These schemes won't apply to children under 7.

A civilised system would allow some degree of flexiblity when someone does their 10 hours a week. One single mum might do two days of 5 hours. Another person with slighty different circumstances might do two four hour days and one two hour day. There also needs to be flexiblity with attending job intervies and taking and dropping children off at school.

but it's not just childcare costs - if you start working you lose your IS, if you work less than 16hrs you don't get the WTC either (it's not just the childcare costs).

'Once they are on IB its very hard to kick them off and they lose confidence in themselves. '

its not hard to kick somebody off IB atall,they do it all the time,then the person loses confidence in themself because they cant get a job,or they do and they cant cope with it.

So 8 year olds don't need childcare then? I think if I let my 9 year old come home every day to an empty house (as he would like!) social services would soon be interested in me.

PMSL at your chippiness towards me Cote d'Azur. Just because you don't like the idea of Marx, doesn't mean he never said anything that makes sense. I don't like Mrs Thatcher, but I've no doubt that simply by the law of averages, she probably said a few sensible things. (I can't think of any just off the top of my head, but I'm happy to accept that there probably were some.)

It is absolutely wrong to say long term dependency is something invented by labour to keep them in power. Long term dependency has always been more associated with Tory governments than Labour ones and certainly the current batch, had their genesis in the eighties under the Tories.

Some of these pronouncements I'm reading on here are terribly reminiscent of the cruel, self-righteous, mean-minded people who ran the means test. You know that if there were 4 of you in a household, you didn't need 5 chairs, so you were forced to sell one before you could claim state relief. Similarly with plates, why did you need 5 when there were only 4 of you in the household? and shoes, you only needed one pair, even if both pairs had holes in so you couldn't get soaked and leave one pair to dry while you wore the second one the next day, because aspiring to a second pair of shoes was considered having an outrageous sense of entitlement. Like having a TV, the cheapest form of entertainment and social inclusion there is.

Oh right you're talking about 10 hours RT.

But what is the point? Seriously, what is the point of making someone figuratively jump through a hoop for 10 hours a week? In fact, why not just go the whole hog and make them literally jump through a hoop for 10 hours a week, then they would get fit and Xenia would approve.

Have you heard of the Speenhamland system? This is where parish mendicants were forced to build roads that led nowhere and were never used, just in order to provide them with labour for their parish relief. It cost ratepayers a fortune, far more than just giving the unemployed double the poor relief sum. Do you really think that's a good idea? Because nearly all thse workfare schemes are just a modern form of Speenhamland.

But LittleBella - God forbid that anyone in this country gets something for nothing. I mean it's not like MPs get anything other than what they earn through good honest hard graft is it? Or celebrities ? Or all those private sector managers with their big fat bonuses?

How dare anybody have more than they need to just scrape by on? Oh hang on, a very large number of people in this country have more money than they know what to sensibly do with. I vote that everyone get means-tested and the surplus gets redistributed - what d'ya reckon? Sell off the second cars, second and third TVs, dishwashers, etc. etc. That would pay for all the benefits for the needy at no cost at all to the Government - problem solved.

What's the point of forcing somebody to work just for the sake of it you ask? To satisfy the smug, self-satisfied baby-boomers (and others who were lucky enough to live in the right place at the right time) who genuinely think they're cleverer and more hard-working than the rest of us. They refuse to acknowledge that they're just the random products of a very unusual set of economic circumstances which is highly unlikely to be repeated.

Communism didn't do wonders for the soviet ecomony. Having any ambition to better yourself fell totally flat and so did their ecomony.

People need to have high rewards for taking risks and using their initative. Many entrapernors like Richard Branson or Alan Sugar were both working class and left school with no qualifications. There is no doult that they have worked hard, used their brains and are probably clever than most of the British population. These people have gained their success by taking huge risks.

Twinklemegan's post is really sad. Its clear that she thinks that people have no control over their own destiny. Ie. They have no way of improving their lot in life and that its all luck.

Someone who has lost all instrinc moviation needs a bit of stick to get them out of bed and thinking. If a workfare scheme does this then its well worth the expense. It is not forced labour, the majority of people do have choices in life.

LOL at people needing to have high rewards for taking risks.

Except people on income support of course, who take an enormous risk coming off benefits and accepting a job they might screw up at, they just need to have very low rewards.

Funny old world, isn't it.

And all that ambition and competitiveness are doing such wonders for the US economy at present!

Spot on, Twinkle.

The Alan Sugars and Richard Bransons of this world are very few and far between, and many of them get rich by exploiting many others, so I hardly consider them a good example for the rest of society.

My problem is that ALWAYS putting the stick before the carrot is lazy thinking, unoriginal, and short-sighted, which usually means that long-term it winds up in miserable failure. At best.

History has shown us what it leads to at its worst.

Just think of what communism is the extreme reaction to.

"Just because you don't like the idea of Marx, doesn't mean he never said anything that makes sense"

I quite like the "idea" of Marx, actually, although it doesn't make sense.

It is a happy, pink, & fluffy idea, where proud workers stand side by side, raise their hammers and sing while they equally share the result of their labours.

Unfortunately, it does not work.

"a very large number of people in this country have more money than they know what to sensibly do with. I vote that everyone get means-tested and the surplus gets redistributed"

Then what?

Once you have divided and distributed all capital, there will be no more private sector. No investments. No salaries. No economic growth. In fact, no economy to speak of.

You are coming from the erronous assumption that you are entitled to a share of everything. You are not. The world doesn't owe you all the riches you see in Hello and Grazia.

I am sure that countries like China don't allow single mothers or those with so called disablites like back problems to live on benefits for years and years.

Our excess income is already redistributed though taxation. The sad thing is that the amount of tax that Expat's husband and me pay has been doubled when the 10p tax band was scrapped.

Really Tired, do you know how many applicants there are for those magic school hour jobs? Those that I apply for, the amount I've sent I lost count of, have at least 50 per job - and if it is a school job then it depends more on who you know not what you know.

Also in places such as West Lothian and Edinburgh schools aren't in on a Friday afternoon, so that adds 3 hours plus however many children you have to the childcare costs. Very unfair and no one has yet given me a reason why the schools are run this way.

China isn't a very good example if you want to talk about societies - would you frogmarch pregnant women to abortion clinics too because they were over their quota?

One of my neighbours, one I consider a friend, is on incapacity benefit due to ME and back pain - the type that some say can't be proved (though if you saw someone when this takes grip then you would take that idea back - and wish it on anyone who is lying to see if they change their mind.) She is fed up of it and after seeing how I was doing on the Open University has signed up to do a psychology degree. So people are trying to get out of their circumstances, it is very, very difficult though and certain attitudes don't help.

Don't throw everyone in the same pot. For all the ones who are lazy and can't be bothered, there are ones who are dizzy from sending out job applications and getting nothing in response.

I promised myself I would stay away from this thread, I have no willpower. Pass me another chocolate.

Twinklemegan was being ironic to make a point! I also have no time to come back properly as I'm about to go for a job interview to keep my job. I took a massive risk to move up here for a one year contract. I now have the chance to go permanent but in return I'll be getting a 20% pay cut. Where's my reward for taking a risk, eh?! Anyway, a more considered post may follow later.

Oh gosh, did I manage to kill the thread? I haven't done that in a while! Clearly a fair number of people on here don't understand irony.

Anyhow, I'd like to know where the choices were during the recession for all those who were made redundant from manufacturing. Their skills were not, and in many cases still are not, wanted by other employers.

I certainly don't want or expect a share of other's wealth. As I said before, I live my life by different values and I don't measure my self worth or success by how much money I make. I think you'll find most people in the public sector think the same way. That's how they get away with paying us so little, because they know we'll go way beyond the call of duty anyway and do loads and loads of overtime that we don't get paid for, because we want to do a good job. Those who need bribing to work hard don't come and work in the public sector.

Anyhow, that's by the by in response to a personal attack on my values. I got the job by the way, if anyone's interested.

To go back to the thread topic, carrot and stick needs to start with employers. And there should be a very large stick with which to beat all those employers out there who aren't interested in people who don't fit the mould. When employers stop advertising jobs which they intend to fill internally, when they find the courtesy to respond to people who have taken the time to apply, and when they stop discriminating against the middle aged white male, THEN the Government can turn the stick on the unemployed.

Twinklemegan, I'll kill this thread rather than you if you like! I seem to be annoying people tonight anyway.

I've often wondered why employers aren't using home-workers more as if there were more opportunities then people wouldn't need to worry about childcare etc.

Sorry you had to reapply for your job on less pay - are you glad you got it? Other than to pay the bills of course. And those smug, self-satisfied baby boomers might not be feeling very much of either at the moment now it is all going to the wall.

TwoIfByTheSea - if someone had asked me a few years ago what I wanted to be doing and where I wanted to be, I'd have described this job and where I live. I love the job, but I'd love it more if I was paid anything close to the average wage. In any other sector than mine, a job like this (computer stuff, data management, etc.) would be paid about twice what I'm on.

Well that you have a job you love is important and a bonus in that you also like where you live. So the pay will come eventually (keeping fingers crossed for you evn though I am always envious of those who have found their place in life!)

Ta muchly. We get by, and that's all we need really. I be happy doing a job I found boring, even with loads of spare cash. That's why I've never applied for management jobs so far - I couldn't stand the schmoozing and time wasting.

Anyhow, it's probably time the thread died - my head can't stand any more banging against brick walls.

Damn - I couldn't stop that in time. That should of course read I COULDN'T be happy doing a job I found boring. Anyhow, I'm retiring with a very sore head.

re:- benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. I couldnt agree more.unless unable to work due ti ill health, special needs, dissability, then we all have a responsibility to help ourselves and to provide as best we can for our children.And where one falls short help is available.To rely solely on benefits should be a thing of the past with todays availability with help towrds childcare costs etc..I fail to understand the constsnt plea of 'i cant work im a single parent'!! All parents- whether married, cohabiting, single, old(er),young, divorced, separated and so on share the SAME issues and problems with childcare arrangements, costs etc. Why do lone parents think they are so different? Most people in relationships dont rely on their partners for childcare anyway as they are generally at work too.