Distortio Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 or you could just nail anybody on benefits to a wall as a deterrant to anybody who doesn't want to work in a poop job for way below minimum wage. Its against the law not to pay minimum wage of £5.52 per hour (the rate for 18 to 21 year olds is £4.60 and £3.40 for 16 to 17 yr olds) If you know someone not paying the full rate - report them! i think you may be missing the point... last i was aware unemployment benefit was somewhere around £55 per week, if this scheme has claimants working 40 hours for their benefits they are effectively being paid somewhere in the region of £1.37 per hour. well, that'd make me want to leap out of bed in the morning. still, i'm sure there'll be some lucrative incentive scheme, share options and suchlike to make it all worthwhile... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pleepsie Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 ^^Well, it might have the effect of making them seek proper employment - then they would get £5.52 an hour for their efforts - or here's an incentive - they might even earn more!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassermaet Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I see the Tories' point on this one, but you also have to remember that they're against the minimum wage so paying someone about £1.37 an hour wouldn't really bother them. In addition...while this would reduce unemployment, there will never be enough jobs to go around, and so it wouldn't get rid of unemployment completely. Sounds like a good idea on paper though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Much of the reaction to this policy does rather take the somewhat blinkered stance that all those on the dole and/or incapacity benefit are work-shy spongers! What happens to those who legitimately sign on after, for example, being made redundant? Sure, they should be trying to look for work, but how can they do that when, like common criminals, they're made to do what amounts to forced community service for a poultry fifty pounds or so a week? No one likes the idea of their tax money going to spungers, layabouts, wasters etc - it's human nature to resent those who don't contribute or pull their own weight. However, amidst all this hysteria and finger-pointing it's too easy to forget why the welfare state exists in the first place, namely to act as a safety net and protect those who fall on hard times until they can get back on their feet. Forcing such people into hard labour just so as they can afford to eat doesn't seem particularly fair to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassermaet Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Good point Ally, hadn't thought of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 last i was aware unemployment benefit was somewhere around £55 per week, if this scheme has claimants working 40 hours for their benefits they are effectively being paid somewhere in the region of £1.37 per hour. well, that'd make me want to leap out of bed in the morning. still, i'm sure there'll be some lucrative incentive scheme, share options and suchlike to make it all worthwhile... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clanchief Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Most of these "employment" programmes include provision for the participants to have time off for job interviews, access to computers and telephones to assist in applying for jobs, stationary, stamps, preparation of CVs, access to Careers advisers etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pleepsie Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7176032.stm People claiming Jobseekers' Allowance for more than two years would have to do 12 months community work. I think that 2 years to find a job is plenty. Given that we have poeple flocking here from Eastern Europe to do jobs that 'Brits dont want to do' - and no that isnt just cleanings the Loos (a job I do on a daily basis - for no pay ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 When i left UNI with my degree the Job Centre gave me 3 months to find a job i liked after that they told me I would have to go for interviews for jobs which i didnt want to do at all. Thankfully just after the 3 months i got a job i wanted. But would have been willing to do anything if i could do it untill somthing better came along. I dont understand how anyone can string it out so long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepshagger Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 last i was aware unemployment benefit was somewhere around £55 per week, if this scheme has claimants working 40 hours for their benefits they are effectively being paid somewhere in the region of £1.37 per hour. well, that'd make me want to leap out of bed in the morning or maybe even make you get a job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Though my circumstances are slightly different to most unemployed people (I have a painful disability) I have been trying to find a job since moving up here. As I now live with my partner I lost all of my benefits apart from DLA, and as the DLA is meant for helping me get around this means I take the grand total of £0.00 to the table As soon as most companies find out about my disability I am disregarded as a viable employee. I have however signed up to a training scheme which I hope will help bring me up to date with the employment world but to do this training costs me £10 in petrol each visit into town. I feel I am in a catch 22 situation and if GB and his cronies want to get myself and others in the same situation as myself to find work then they will have to make it easier to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pooks Posted January 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Perhaps my first post was a little hasty. I am not suggesting that everyone claiming benefits due to being unemployed should be forced into a 40/50 hour week of practically unpaid work. I do however think it would do no harm to get those people that are unemployed to do voluntary/community work. Through this process they will meet people and contacts, and their willingness to work will not stagnate. 40 hours a week pondering how to make your CV better or 20 hours a week meeting people and learning skills that could make your chance of gaining employment that bit more successful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pleepsie Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 ^^^ People who are truly unable to work have nothing but my sympathy, it is not a situation I would like to be in myself. I hope genuine claimants dont feel 'picked on' as all our remarks are aimed at people who abuse the system and take money and services away from people who need them most. I know people both sides of the fence, and get realy annoyed when I see perfectly fit people sitting in pubs all day (I see them on my lunch break) whilst my taxes pay for their beer. To the wish that I could do more to help someone who is on the poverty line, but never complains and gets on as best they can. All I can say is well done to Malcolm for having a go, its a shame that more can't be done to help you and others in your situation. I am shocked that there is no help for your traveling costs, surely there is something that can be done about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 My worry is that a policy such as this starts to look very much like slave labour if carried further. It is reasonable enough to expect people to earn their keep where possible, and to take care of those who cannot. What are these jobs which the government is asking people to do while they're 'unemployed'? Might they likely to be the dirty, dangerous and smelly jobs by any chance? Or the highly boring ones involving close, repetitive work in a small room for hours on end? I scanned the article, but I cannot find examples of the sort of job which society needs doing but isn't prepared to employ someone to do by the usual route? Is this soley to catch the work-shy, or does it aim to find work for people who would genuinely like to be doing something to earn their keep? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepshagger Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 ^ nothing wrong with catching the work shy out, and those that genuinely want to work will of found a job in six months far less two years.If this is not the case then how can anyone argue for immigration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.