This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to nickyrannoch:
Interesting.
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".
Interesting.
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".
In reply to thin bob:
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.
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.
In reply to DNS:
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.
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.
In reply to nickyrannoch: What if, instead of working for a private company they were taken on for roles in the public sector. Just simple cleaner jobs or extra labour to take the stress off real employee's not to replace jobs that already exist. That way they are helping the state in return for a payout from the state. If they don't like that work or pay level they are than welcome to gain a proper job at any time.
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
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 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.
In reply to thin bob:
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.
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.
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
- because as we all know getting a well paid job is such a piece of piss!
> (In reply to nickyrannoch) If they don't like that work or pay level they are than welcome to gain a proper job at any time.
- because as we all know getting a well paid job is such a piece of piss!
In reply to nickyrannoch:
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
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 reply to Lord_ash2000:
apart from you will have removed jobs eg any temping work people could have done. Unless its complete make work.
> (In reply to nickyrannoch) What if, instead of working for a private company they were taken on for roles in the public sector. Just simple cleaner jobs or extra labour to take the stress off real employee's not to replace jobs that already exist.
apart from you will have removed jobs eg any temping work people could have done. Unless its complete make work.
In reply to nickyrannoch:
"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".
Irony.
"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".
Irony.
In reply to nickyrannoch:
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.
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.
In reply to nickyrannoch: This ruling is a tiny glimmer of hope shining through an exceptionally bleak employment picture. People shouldn't be forced to work for benefits, after all they have payed in NI contributions for them (or will do in the future). Unemployment is not the fault of those without jobs it's just something that some people have to go through. Structural unemployment runs at about 4-5% at least in neoliberal societies, we should obviously compensate those who are let down by the economy.
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.
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.
In reply to jkarran:
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.
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.
In reply to confusicating:My point is that if you don't get off your arse and do something for your dole then you shouldn't have the right to the tax money of those that do.
In reply to muppetfilter: You do know that a lot of people currently unemployed were, up to the point of losing their jobs, one of those people that paid their taxes, including NI contributions?
In reply to muppetfilter: So you'd let people die of starvation because they aren't prepared to line the profits of large corporations for no remuneration other that that payed for by their own NI contributions. This seems a tad unfair to me and I'm sure why you hold Africa and Asia up to be some better alternatives?
Your obviously too stupid to look past the govs self-serving rhetoric.
Your obviously too stupid to look past the govs self-serving rhetoric.
In reply to nickyrannoch:
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?
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?
In reply to muppetfilter: But what should unemployed people be made to do? Should they do stuff that would otherwise be a job for someone (like working in a shop for nothing)? Or paint rocks white so angry people can feel happy that they're not getting "something for nothing"?
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.
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.
In reply to nickyrannoch:
> (In reply to nickyrannoch)
>
> 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.>
> What do the 'get off hteir arse brigade' think is a reasonable amount of work to be asked to do for £71?
>
In reply to Sir Chasm:
well done for yet another Daily Mail response!
> (In reply to nickyrannoch)
> [...]
> 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.
> [...]
> 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!
In reply to Sir Chasm: yeah good one. Original - Litter, Chav, Oik and McDonalds all in one!
In reply to PeterM:
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
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
In reply to lost1977:
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.
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.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
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.
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.
In reply to nickyrannoch: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=538390
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
"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.
> (In reply to nickyrannoch) If they don't like that work or pay level they are than welcome to gain a proper job at any time.>
"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.
In reply to nickyrannoch:
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.
> Workfare student wins appeal
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928
>
> Let the games begin !!
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928
>
> 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.
after almost a year of unemployment (24 days of temp work in that time) i now have 23 hrs a week @£6.25 ph permanent job. i want to work and this is all i can get. working for this kind of money barely seems worth it but i would rather work
In reply to Blizzard: Or they could all sit at home take hard earned tax money for doing sweet F.A.
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.
http://www.latitudesradio.org/shows/2011-08/sanitation-day
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.
http://www.latitudesradio.org/shows/2011-08/sanitation-day
In reply to Steve John B:
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.
> (In reply to nickyrannoch)
> [...]
>
> "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".
>
> Irony.
> [...]
>
> "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".
>
> Irony.
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.
In reply to muppetfilter:
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.
> (In reply to Blizzard) Or they could all sit at home take hard earned tax money for doing sweet F.A.
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.
In reply to Timmd:
What, like a museum?
> (In reply to muppetfilter)
> [...]
>
> Or, they could do voluntary work for thier local charitable trusts and councils, in things environment and community related?
>
> [...]
>
> Or, they could do voluntary work for thier local charitable trusts and councils, in things environment and community related?
>
What, like a museum?
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
Care to translate that from loony left bollocks into English? On second thoughts, don't bother, its drivel in any language.
> ... neoliberal societies, we should obviously compensate those who are let down by the economy. ... gullibly swallowing the poisonous rhetoric of a revanchist clique of class warriors
Care to translate that from loony left bollocks into English? On second thoughts, don't bother, its drivel in any language.
In reply to Simon4:
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.
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.
In reply to Swirly:
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. ()
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> What, like a museum?
> [...]
>
> 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. ()
In reply to Simon4: See this is the problem with the right as I brought up in an earlier thread, not very intelligent and not keen on learning. Or in your terms - thick as f*ck.
In reply to muppetfilter:
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 !
> (In reply to Blizzard)
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 !
In reply to Jim C:
> 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.
> And the police get paid to do the beating?
> The police should be made to beat them for free !
The police get paid mainly by bribery and extortion .. in its own way a rather sterling example of the free enterprise culture.
In reply to muppetfilter:Was probably a bit short of me to say 'i'd have thought that much is obvious' about things not being black and white.
An unwarranted lack of politeness... ()
An unwarranted lack of politeness... ()
In reply to muppetfilter:
"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.
Neil
"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.
Neil
In reply to nickyrannoch: I've no problem with expecting long term unemployed folk who have lost skills/confidence to engage in some kind of 'experience' of work but what has been happening is shocking and I'm really pleased about today's ruling.
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.
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.
In reply to abr1966:
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).
Neil
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).
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams: Agreed.....another by where I live....the river is full of crap, litter and general junk. The trees are overgrown and the path is unpassable...I'd rather this was sorted out than poundland given free labour.
In reply to abr1966: I was in a similar position to Ms Reily during the 1980s war on work. I ended up on a scheme doing just that.... environmental improvements in the Shropshire Hills. I learned skills: moorland management, hedge laying, path building and although it was not much, I got paid! That is of course the problem - employing folk means paying them and they don't like doing that.
No corperation was subsidised either.
No corperation was subsidised either.
In reply to Fat Bumbly2: ah Community Programme. A lot of conservation people got started that way
In reply to nickyrannoch:
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?
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?
In reply to Neil Williams:
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).
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).
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...