Let the games begin !!
I was sat next to a woman in the dole office a couple of weeks ago. She was told she was being sent to a shop to work 5 days a week as workfare. When she asked about travel costs and how her 3 children were going to be looked after, taken to school she was told (I quote) " That's your problem".
Is that the same 'problem' that she might have if she found a job?
I think the judgement today has some positive aspects. Work should be paid at least at minimum wage and 'workfare' should leave a realistic amount of time available to those affected to be able to seek and apply for a 'real' job, in my opinion. I struggle with the free-gift to employers also, that doesn't feel right.
It's never going to work well for everyone, but I do feel that the funders of the system should expect the recipients to play their part. I've been on both sides of the benefits system in my time.
Yes, it would be the same, except that working would mean she could afford childcare/transport. 'Workfare' is working fulltime for up to £71 a week, so it is a free gift to some employers.
I would have no problem with working part-time at a charity/community work for *some* extra money.
Fares, food/clothes allowance (some people skip meals, not a good idea if you're working) and childcare need to be covered somehow.
I think there's also a risk with this sort of policy that it could be economically damaging in the long run, as people who have the potential to do comparatively skilled and productive jobs waste that potential by getting locked in to mindless drone work that leaves them with no time or energy to look for something more useful.
- because as we all know getting a well paid job is such a piece of piss!
i'm only just back in employment (23 hrs a week) i would have quite happily done work in exchange for my benefits if it gave me a foot in the door with an employer
In most of African and Asia .. You don't work you don't eat...
What is your point?
apart from you will have removed jobs eg any temping work people could have done. Unless its complete make work.
But would you have done it if it left you worse off?
Didn't we have this argument 6 months or more ago?
IIRC the general consensus was that people agreed that people should do something for their benefits but that the scheme was flawed because you are gifting profit making companies free labour, removing potential paid jobs and blocking people from volunteering for charities.
Something like that anyhow.
This is not to disagree with temporary work schemes being offered but clearly people should be payed at least minimum wage unless it is actually formal training. The government has done a good job of influencing public opinion on this and their propaganda sets the tone of debate on here. Unemployed people have nothing to be ashamed of they are victims of the economic and political powers that be. All this crap about making them work for a benefit they are more than entitled to simply amounts to jumping on the bandwagon and gullibly swallowing the poisonous rhetoric of a revanchist clique of class warriors.
You're commenting rather selectively are you not? Barely pausing for breath, I ventured that work should pay at least the minimum wage. But to take your point - 'workfare' pays: very little, but it does pay.
Your obviously too stupid to look past the govs self-serving rhetoric.
What do the 'get off hteir arse brigade' think is a reasonable amount of work to be asked to do for £71?
Also, is it just private companies that should benefit from this scheme or should I be able to register for this scheme to get people to wash my windows, hooover the flat and pick my sugar cane?
I suspect I've paid more tax than most in my time, but I don't begrudge anyone their benefits - it's not as if it's a life of luxury is it? And if it ever came to me needing some help from the state I wouldn't expect others to begrudge me my benefits either. That's how the system works.
> What do the 'get off hteir arse brigade' think is a reasonable amount of work to be asked to do for £71?
> At nmw, about 11 hours litter picking. Have you seen the state of the verges? Plus it might make the chavvy oiks think twice about how to dispose of their mcdonalds wrapper.
well done for yet another Daily Mail response!
probably, if there is a chance the employer would recognise you as someone they would want to employ then i would take the financial hit. In an interview i can sell myself well, i can also sell myself well in a trial, unfortunately in London employers aren't even acknowledging applications most of the time
Let me get this right. You now have to work 5 days a week for £71? How many people on here, unemployed or otherwise would be happy to do that??
The government surely wont get away with this. Oh, and its still ok to pay some bankers millions. A drastic rebalancing of wealth surely has to take place, how I am unsure.
But wasn't the governments angle on the scheme that it would give the participants skills and experience to help them find gainful employment?
There's little doubt that the ability to take shit from people on a daily basis is a valuable skill but collecting litter isn't likely to help many people into their desired careers.
"At anytime" oh yeah! I have been trying to get a proper job for 7 months. I am well qualified. It really is not that easy.
> Let the games begin !!
The 'middle' of a recession is not a good time to tell people to get a job. There are plenty of clever and motivated people who are unemployed who are trying to, and can't get a job.
So where are these companies who would employ someone who has been unemployed long term., when they have the pick of the crop coming out of schools and university or even experienced people who have been recently unemployed, to say nothing of European graduates who have upped sticks to get work in other countries including the UK?
It is a crazy policy, spending more money to try and get the unemployable a job in this climate, do they think employers are stupid enough to risk their business taking on someone who has never or rarely worked for whatever reason.
In Nigeria the last Sunday of the month is deemed "Sanitation Day" everyone is expected to go out onto the streets and fill in potholes and clean the streets. They do it for free, ok if they don't the police beat them with sticks ... Some of it is a good idea.
> "Those two weeks [working in a shop] were a complete waste of my time, as the experience did not help me get a job," she said... "I now work part-time in a supermarket".
She may have ment that the experience didn't help her to get a job in what she's studied and is volunteering in? People can imply something without saying it, which can lead to confusion. Pretty annoying it can be, too.
Or, they could do voluntary work for thier local charitable trusts and councils, in things environment and community related?
I know of somebody who spent quite a while doing that, and he now has a job with a group called Blue Loop in Sheffield, to do with maintaining the river water quality and getting local people involved.
It's not as back and white as either doing Sweet FA or working in places like Poundland for free. That much is obvious i'd have thought, to be honest, life is never black and white.
> Or, they could do voluntary work for thier local charitable trusts and councils, in things environment and community related?
What, like a museum?
Care to translate that from loony left bollocks into English? On second thoughts, don't bother, its drivel in any language.
it means that the posh, moneyed boys & girls at the top (who would like a victorian society) don't care about those, perhaps temporarily, less fortunate.
Apologies for the 3-syllable words.
> What, like a museum?
Indeed, or thier local wildlife trust, or something in helping look after old people.
It's being a part of Cameron's 'Big Society' after all. (:-))
They do it for free, ok if they don't the police beat them with sticks .
And the police get paid to do the beating?
The police should be made to beat them for free !
> And the police get paid to do the beating?
The police get paid mainly by bribery and extortion .. in its own way a rather sterling example of the free enterprise culture.
An unwarranted lack of politeness... (:-))
"The police get paid mainly by bribery and extortion"
There are plenty of countries in which that is true, but fortunately it is not of the UK.
In the 80's recession I remember my old mad doing a 'community service' job in Liverpool....I think he was clearing land and making park environments etc....he did canal clearing etc at one point too. He was actually employed at the time though and I think he had a wage that was higher than benefits but not massively more.
He was glad to do this though as it benefitted the community and wasn't about lining the pockets of companies as free labour.
I'm sure there are lots of social projects that could help with giving people some experience and confidence....it's about people feeling invested in a project and not exploited.
Here's one - there's a real shortage of public bogs, which is quite inconvenient, you might say. Open some up, and pay attendants to man them (and charge for their use).
No corperation was subsidised either.
maybe it's a coincidence, but the community payback (smalltime crims doing community work) haven't been seen around here for a couple of months...maybe they're all in poundshops, now?
There used to be lots of public toilets, the main reason there are very few these days is because they were too expensive to maintain. Even pay toilets will only be sustainable in places with very high densities of people, these places generally have some sort of access to public toilets (shopping centres, train stations etc).
Elsewhere on the site
Manchester Climbing Centre is showing Reel Rock’s Valley Uprising on Tuesday the 11th of November at... Read more
From a personal point of view, photographing the night sky is one of the most difficult, frustrating yet ultimately rewarding... Read more