Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Confused re attitude to benefits and work experience

460 replies

catontheroof · 07/03/2012 12:17

Your thoughts please - why has it become so politically incorrect to suggest that fit adults in this country should be expected to work for a living?

I believe that we need a safety net but cannot understand why people should not have to take jobs that they are qualified for if those jobs exist. I also cannot understand why people "deserve" tax credits etc.

If large chunks of our population do not work then our GDP is low. The only way that we can afford to have so many on benefits with a relatively high standard of living is by importing goods from other countries where the workers live and work in atrocious conditions.

Why do we think that it is right and proper that people in this country sit around being paid not to work whilst tens of thousands all over the world work in sweat shops to provide them with a lifestyle?

If our fit population all worked then we'd increase GDP and have money to help people in other countries where there is real poverty.

OP posts:
Happenstance · 07/03/2012 12:19

Dons Hard hat and makes a Brew

shotinfoot · 07/03/2012 12:22

I think you've missed the point. The outrage was not about people having to work for a living, but that large corporations were effectively benefitting from the current level of unemployment by getting unskilled workers for free - slave labour, in other words.

If the Government is to force people to stack shelves on a night shift for Tesco (by threatening to remove benefit), the workers themselves are 'experiencing' very little. However, Tesco are able to fill a role which they currently have to pay a minimum wage salary for.

That is why so many people object.

May I also suggest that you haven't had to find a job recently. Hmm

dreamingbohemian · 07/03/2012 12:23

Here is what bothers me about the argument that 'people should just get jobs, not live on benefits':

  1. In many places there are NOT enough jobs. You can apply for ten jobs a week, if you are always one of 500 applying for them, your odds of getting it are still very low.
  1. Many people who receive benefits ARE working. So I hate the caricature of people on benefits being workshy, sitting on their arses all day.

The problems of unemployment and a large benefits bill are very complex and cannot be reduced to 'everyone should just get a job'. It's a Daily Mail answer to a very complicated question.

DustyDen · 07/03/2012 12:24

I- wow. People on benefits are the reason for slaves working in sweatshops?

HoneyandHaycorns · 07/03/2012 12:25

You do sound confused and ignorant. Maybe you should read up a bit more on what's actually happening.

HTH

crazygracieuk · 07/03/2012 12:29

Where should I start?
Assuming you're not a troll but can you explain

  • where the jobs are for all the fit people?
  • what you mean by fit- Physical? Mental? How would you measure fitness- DWP often makes mistakes with regards to this.
  • why you are lumping all adults in one category? What about personal circumstances like people who are carers?
  • how everyone is supposed to afford childcare? If I worked I would probably only make enough to cover childcare for my 3 and that's a wage that's above national average.
  • why people on work experience shouldn't accrue employee benefits like a work contract, holidays, entitlement to breaks etc.?
-why should companies like Tesco who make billions, be paid to take people and get free labour?
biddysmama · 07/03/2012 12:33

my dad was made redundant 2 years ago, he has never ever been unemployed since he started working at 16, he wants to work, e is depressed that he isnt supporting his family and has to rely on benefits, hes doing everything to get a job, taking courses and applying for everything but there is no work where he lives :(

Chocobo · 07/03/2012 12:33

OP - would you prefer to live in a country where we don't have a Benefits system and where people who cannot work or are unable to find work are left to fend for themselves? Yes I am sure some people who take the piss (not sure how many but doubt it is as bad as The Sun makes out) and as long as we have a benfits system there will always be some who take the piss but I would rather that situation than the alternative.

Original poster
catontheroof · 07/03/2012 12:34

I'm not saying that everyone should get a job - and I do not agree with the workfare scheme as it was introduced. However had the companies paid a standard wage then I think that it is reasonable.

There will always be unemployment (hence the need for a safety net) but that's what I think it should be - a safety net - not a lifestyle choice.

I know that many on benefits are working but I do not think that most are working full time. Why shouldnt' they work FT?

As to my situation - I work on lots of short term teaching supply-type contracts, exam marking etc so am always looking for work. It is very hard locally (I'm in the south west so not much about) and so I work mainly in the Midlands at the moment with a 2 hour commute each way.

OP posts:
Original poster
catontheroof · 07/03/2012 12:37

.....You do sound confused and ignorant. Maybe you should read up a bit more on what's actually happening.

I'm not ignorant - hence my ability to post some questions, open a discussion - have a discussion :)
How about some references to tell me what to read up on?

This is what I do not understand - why don't people actually argue against anyone suggesting that benefits are too high? How about some figures? Where will the money come from?

OP posts:
TroublesomeEx · 07/03/2012 12:38

Also, work experience should be relevant and beneficial not a punishment - which is what the workfare felt like.

There is a problem with a lack of the 'soft skills' - getting up every morning, turning up somewhere, doing as your told, having a 'job' to do and just getting on a doing it...

But this is a problem for everyone who is long term unemployed because it's such a fucking soul destroying state of affairs.

Forcing them out of the door to go and stack shelves in Tesco is not the way to address this. Many people who are long term unemployed suffer from depression or at least experience some of the feelings and symptoms of depression.

I think that encouraging and enabling people to find worthwhile voluntary work in the community would also provide these skills, would give them experience in an area they might like to work in and might lead to work. I personally think that this would be a far better idea.

I wouldn't be affected by the workfare scheme and yet the thought of it made me feel quite anxious. That's enough to tell me that that particular scheme was wrong.

shotinfoot · 07/03/2012 12:38

Since you mention your own circumstances, who looks after your children during this long commute and working day?

And yes, had the companies paid standard wage that would have been acceptable BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THEM JOBS! Not work experience Confused

Original poster
catontheroof · 07/03/2012 12:43

where the jobs are for all the fit people?...carers...childcare

I think that everyone who is physically and mentally fit, and is not caring for anyone full time should have to try to get a job and should be obliged to apply for jobs.

I'm not sure about the childcare issue - at least one parent must work - many people do struggle to both work whilst bringing up children whilst paying taxes to enable others to stay at home. I'm not sure that this is morally defensible.

OP posts:
shotinfoot · 07/03/2012 12:44

what's not morally defensible? That people can't work because of their children?

Original poster
catontheroof · 07/03/2012 12:45

If I worked I would probably only make enough to cover childcare for my 3 and that's a wage that's above national average.

This is exactly what I cannot understand - why is it morally acceptable to use the "there is nothing in it for me" arguement here? Why shouldn't you work just so that you are not dependant on strangers (like me) to pay for your upkeep?

why should companies like Tesco who make billions
They don't - the shareholders make billions - most of these are pension funds - pensions funds for private sector workers. If companies stop making profits then anyone working in the private sector now will have nothing to retire on.

OP posts:
shotinfoot · 07/03/2012 12:48

Noone is suggesting that Tesco shouldn't make billions for their shareholders, just that they shouldn't be aided in this by giving them access to free labour instead of employing actual real life people on a living wage.

TroublesomeEx · 07/03/2012 12:49

I know that many on benefits are working but I do not think that most are working full time. Why shouldnt' they work FT?

Not all jobs are offered full time.

NowThenWreck · 07/03/2012 12:49

Coming at this from the other end, so to speak, if housing costs had not been allowed to get so insanely high, and employers paid employees proper salaries that one could actually live on, then 5 and a half million WORKING people in the UK would not have to claim Tax Credits.

The vast minority of people "on benefits" are unemployed, but the cost of living has far outstripped wages.
Essentially, for years governments have been subsidising business by topping up the salaries they should have been paying.

Working FT I would make around 20 K. Say I live in the South East.

12 k of that is rent.(conservative estimate) 2 K travel costs. 2 k childcare costs. 3 k bills.

That would leave me and my child less than £20 a week to buy food and clothes, not to mention school dinners, school trips etc etc etc.
Add Child benefit to that and it is still under £40 a week.

LadyBeagleEyes · 07/03/2012 12:50

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.
That is all.

Original poster
catontheroof · 07/03/2012 12:50

Since you mention your own circumstances, who looks after your children during this long commute and working day?

my partner and I both work FT - he works from home and does the school runs. Between us we juggle childcare and work.

If people like us didn't do this then there would be no money for benefits.

Can someone tell me where the money should come from? At the moment the UK spends way more each year than it produces (hence the ever increasing deficit). Countries like China make more than they spend (because their populations work stupidly hard compared to us). We are living off the goods that the Chinese etc produce by working so much harder than people in this country. How can this is ethical?

OP posts:
shotinfoot · 07/03/2012 12:50

What if there is only one parent. They must work? And what if they have no childcare? What if their wages don't cover their childcare?

It's all very well stating a 'what's in it for me' attitude but really, what is that family going to eat? How is that family going to pay it's bills?

Memoo · 07/03/2012 12:51

So OP, what do you think of the plan to make terminally ill people work??

NowThenWreck · 07/03/2012 12:51

I also would like to know who looks after your children when you are doing this 4 hour commute OP.

TheRealityTillyMinto · 07/03/2012 12:51

Why shouldn't you work just so that you are not dependant on strangers (like me) to pay for your upkeep?

i agree. YANBU.

ClothesOfSand · 07/03/2012 12:52

OP, you are saying that you think workfare would be a good thing if people were paid a wage. Yes, nobody is arguing that it wouldn't be a brilliant thing if Tesco etc created thousands of new jobs and gave them to unemployed people.

You think that everyone who is fit and is not caring for somebody else should get a job. Yes, that is the current system. People who are fit and well and are not caring for somebody else have to look for a job if they are claiming JSA.

So what is it that you think you are actually arguing against? Who is proposing otherwise?