Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Work for benefits?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7516551.stm

so what do people think then???
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    About time i think...for the unemployment benefits anyway. Incapacity benefit i think should just be better policed/monitored.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seems like it'll either be a waste of public money, or exploitative.

    I'm not sure but last time I read about this the idea was to allow private companies to run the 'community work' schemes. Obviously, they're going to have to be paid as well, along with the 'workers' benefit. I wonder if these private companies are good friends of some prominent MPs.

    I'm also concerned about what exactly constitutes 'community work', there's very little work I can think of that directly benefits everyone in the community. What if these people are used as labor for private profit enterprises, will they be paid minimum wage for their work?

    If there's so much public community work apparently available why not give people actual real jobs doing them? Forcing them to accept a real job is far fairer than making them 'work for benefits'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The work they do for benefits could also be of use to the community as well, for example, cleaning graffiti from walls or picking up litter, sorting at a recylcling plant or something equally as productive. For those that cant work, fair enough..but why should those perfectly able to work but just..not, get to claim benefits for nothing?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's 4x more people who claim they can't work than people who are on jobseekers...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seems like it'll either be a waste of public money, or exploitative.


    probably both the cost of doing this combined with the effective hourly rate would be tantamount to subsidised slave labour

    this country doesn't have 1 job to every person, so therefore it's unfair
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Erm...isn't this already in place? After a year or so, if you're still on Job Seekers, you end up going to one of those A4E (I think that's the name) where you search for jobs, and later get placed on a 6/8 week placement of work, whilst earning your Job Seekers, so it goes on your CV. They could have a better scheme in place though, when you get a placement you end up wasting your Job Seekers on going to that place, just to get Job Seekers. Which beats the purpose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If there's so much public community work apparently available why not give people actual real jobs doing them? Forcing them to accept a real job is far fairer than making them 'work for benefits'.
    I agree. Surely if there is so much work that needs doing, we could just give them a job? I think there's a tendency to put for too much effort into getting people off benefits, when economically, it's not exactly going to save you much money. I wonder how much effort it takes to police enough benefit claimants to save as much money as you would by going after some of the tax dodgers at the top end of the earnings ladder. Obviously we want as many people in work as possible, because it's about more than just money, but we've got a pretty good unemployment rate in the UK, so I don't see it as a massive issue tbh. But obviously it's an emotive issue that gets the blood boiling in all of the decent, honest, hard-working people (ignoring the fact that most of them will take out more than they put in in their lifetime anyway), and so it's something for politicians to build a campaign around.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If this was incredibly well managed, and took into account the individuals needs and how they need help it might work.

    Much like with probation and rehabilitation, money put into helping people to get skills and get back into work does save in the longer term.

    The big stumbling block is what do you do about people who really dont want to work, who wont get new skills - just kick them out on the street?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    The big stumbling block is what do you do about people who really dont want to work, who wont get new skills - just kick them out on the street?

    Dont really see a problem in letting them starve.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    Dont really see a problem in letting them starve.

    And if they don’t obediently curl up and die, but enter a life of crime to feed themselves and their families? I'd suggest jail is a lot more expensive than benefits.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    If this was incredibly well managed, and took into account the individuals needs and how they need help it might work.

    Much like with probation and rehabilitation, money put into helping people to get skills and get back into work does save in the longer term.

    The big stumbling block is what do you do about people who really dont want to work, who wont get new skills - just kick them out on the street?

    Food stamps and emergency housing. You can still feed and shelter people, but make it so low quality that they are tempted to go and find a job
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Food stamps and emergency housing. You can still feed and shelter people, but make it so low quality that they are tempted to go and find a job

    Well that's a great idea for single men and women who happen to refuse to work. Hardly fair on any kids they happen to have, who've done nothing to deserve such a shit deal though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well that's a great idea for single men and women who happen to refuse to work. Hardly fair on any kids they happen to have, who've done nothing to deserve such a shit deal though.

    Its hardly fair on the kids if your parents refuse to work, anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If someone is forced to work, either for the government picking up litter for less than minimum wage, or they are forced to go out and find real work for decent pay, I think it may be enough of an incentive to go out and find real work. I expect the plan is to make the litter picking seem so unattractive, the "won't" work claimants will have their hand forced and will actually go out and do some work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And what happens to those currently employed picking up litter?

    If we are going to press gang unemployed people into forced labour at below the minimum wage you may find that others are forced out of the labour market.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Food stamps and emergency housing. You can still feed and shelter people, but make it so low quality that they are tempted to go and find a job

    Emergency housing? Force them to live in squallor in other words. I dont know whether you have been in much council housing in the most deprived areas but its not exactly all that much above squallor now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Emergency housing? Force them to live in squallor in other words. I dont know whether you have been in much council housing in the most deprived areas but its not exactly all that much above squallor now.

    so what would you do? let those Lazy little shit have good housing, nice food, money to buy nice things?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    so what would you do? let those Lazy little shit have good housing, nice food, money to buy nice things?

    I would certainly invest a lot more into social housing, the current standards in parts of London are truly shocking. It really isnt surprising that the kids there are angry with the world.

    As for job seekers, as I said further up it needs to be well funded and it needs to the tailored to the individuals needs. Many of them wont have the skills needed in the current job market, so we should teach them.

    As for those who persistantly refuse to join in, then yes I do think there should be some sort of community service - but it does need to be managed to make sure kids lives arent ruined for the sins of their parents.

    More than anything though I think we are targetting the wrong people - we are (as virtually always) blaming those with virtually no power in society for societies problems.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    I would certainly invest a lot more into social housing, the current standards in parts of London are truly shocking. It really isnt surprising that the kids there are angry with the world..

    there are lots of working people who live in some very shit places just because they cant afford anything better, i would be a little more worried about them then some lazy little cunts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    so what would you do? let those Lazy little shit have good housing, nice food, money to buy nice things?
    How much exactly do you think people on benefits get?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    How much exactly do you think people on benefits get?

    About as much as his pocket money, probably.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Emergency housing? Force them to live in squallor in other words. I dont know whether you have been in much council housing in the most deprived areas but its not exactly all that much above squallor now.

    Most of it isn't though (and the majority is improving - eg decent homes funding). And yes if someone can't be arsed to work they should get the bare minimum. I'm happy to pay for people who can't work because they're ill or disabled or can't get a job. I'm not happy to pay for people who can't be bothered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem is the government don't seem to be able to tell the difference between people who can't work and people who can't be bothered. I don't think anything the government do to make people who can't be bothered to work get a job because most people I know who haven't worked have parents who've never worked either. Playing the system for everything they can get is like their family trade and they will find a way around anything the government does to get them back into work. Everything the government has tried so far had just made things more difficult for the people who genuinely need help.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem is the government don't seem to be able to tell the difference between people who can't work and people who can't be bothered. I don't think anything the government do to make people who can't be bothered to work get a job because most people I know who haven't worked have parents who've never worked either. Playing the system for everything they can get is like their family trade and they will find a way around anything the government does to get them back into work. Everything the government has tried so far had just made things more difficult for the people who genuinely need help.

    And that's why they have to look at the system again. Frankly, generations of people have been screwed by letting them live on benefits, they pass it on to their children and their children's children. none of them have an idea about how to have a job. This is an attempt to break that cycle

    Will it work? fuck knows

    But we do know the current system isn't...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The government won't be able to break that cycle. It won't be able to prevent crime either, because people who want to find a way around the current system will. The people who need help but want to be honest will have their lives made more difficult. The best the government can do to encourage the children of people who have never worked to get a job is to make them want a career and believe they can have it, but that would involve spending money on giving them a decent education, which the government obviously don't want to do.
    I don't see what these changes will achieve. Why does someone have to be unemployed for months before they're given help finding a job? The government has tried to change the system over the last few years and it's just made it harder for people who really are unable to work, while the people who just don't want to work adapt to the changes and carry on as normal. You can't change someone's way of life just by making things hard for them, you have to make sure they understand why they should change.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For several years, I have argued that the state should be much smaller than it is now. I believe we should have a small government which just gets on quietly with running the country, instead of noisily announcing pointless initiatives designed to waste the billions we pay in taxes each year. When the state employs more people than the entire population of Scotland, you know that things are very fucked up indeed. Socialists everywhere view the welfare state as something to be proud of. They view it as a sacred cow, much like the NHS. They had good intentions when they set this up, and those who opposed its creation were bluntly wrong.

    However, mistakes have been made over the years. The Thatcher government made the disastrous error in the 1980s of putting millions of people on Incapacity Benefit. (or Invalidity Benefit, as it was known back then) This was symptomatic of the way government was increasingly using the welfare state in order to conceal its own failings. New Labour, in its 11 years in power, has done next to nothing about this, and I am unconvinced that James Purnell and the Nu-Labour clan are sincere in their desires to reform the welfare state. Even the most pathetically modest reforms in this government have to be watered-down to the point of meaninglessness, simply to pander to Labour dinosaurs and the cheque-writers at the trade unions.

    History will repeat itself once more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    However, mistakes have been made over the years. The Thatcher government made the disastrous error in the 1980s of putting millions of people on Incapacity Benefit. (or Invalidity Benefit, as it was known back then) This was symptomatic of the way government was increasingly using the welfare state in order to conceal its own failings. New Labour, in its 11 years in power, has done next to nothing about this, and I am unconvinced that James Purnell and the Nu-Labour clan are sincere in their desires to reform the welfare state. Even the most pathetically modest reforms in this government have to be watered-down to the point of meaninglessness, simply to pander to Labour dinosaurs and the cheque-writers at the trade unions.

    Interestingly, unemployment* has fallen but total employment has remained steady. This indicates that more people are deciding they don't need a job, or are classed as unable to work. In essence, in order to make it look like like unemployment is going down, the government have made it easier for people to get off jobseekers and onto some other form of benefit, or by just excluding them from jobseekers altogether.

    *as defined by the government

    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/unemployment/the-true-level-of-unemployment-in-uk/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Interestingly, unemployment* has fallen but total employment has remained steady. This indicates that more people are deciding they don't need a job, or are classed as unable to work. In essence, in order to make it look like like unemployment is going down, the government have made it easier for people to get off jobseekers and onto some other form of benefit, or by just excluding them from jobseekers altogether.
    By George, I think he's got it. :p

    It's a practice which has to be stopped.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the proposals don't make distinctions or look at cases individually, they will be wholy unfair IMO. Is a bloke in his mid 20s who has been most of his adult life on benefits the same as a 53 year old man who's been made redundant from the job he's been doing most of his life? Is the latter really expected to accept just any job after one year if he has not found a decent job in that time?

    Would you be prepared to do community service for your benefits simply because you've been a printer or office manager or financial adviser or mechanic all your life and the only offers you've had since your redundancy were for shit-paid, no-skill, dead end jobs? I know I wouldn't...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And that's why they have to look at the system again. Frankly, generations of people have been screwed by letting them live on benefits, they pass it on to their children and their children's children. none of them have an idea about how to have a job. This is an attempt to break that cycle

    Will it work? fuck knows

    But we do know the current system isn't...

    Isn't it? We have much lower unemployment than the European average, and roughly the same as America (which btw counts 1 hour of paid employment per week as an "employed" person, so their actual rate is much higher than the European equivalent statistics). Ours is 5.1%, so we should be looking at countries like Denmark (3.1%), Holland (2.6%), and Austria (4.1%) to see how they achieve it. But tbh, we're not that bad.

    Incidentally, I think that this offers a picture of the sort of thing you might expect from a more harsh welfare system.

    Tbh, I reckon that employment levels have very little to do with welfare tbh. I just don't believe that welfare is an incentive for anyone to not work.
Sign In or Register to comment.