The recession, benefits, the safety net, and the learning curve

LydiaJ

harryhound,

A nice idea. Again, I'm interested in the details.

How would you pair people into buddies? How would the pay be split between the two people? What if one buddy does the job much more conscientiously than the other?

And above all, what kinds of jobs do you think would be suitable for this? It's all very well saying that the employer doesn't have to pay if the job isn't done on a particular day, but most jobs need doing every day. If the customers turn up and there's nobody there, it's a problem. What happens if the people do the job badly? In a business context, one stupid employee being unhelpful or even offensive to customers can lose you business that it may take a long time to replace. If this system could only apply to the kinds of public service roles that vivatifosi suggests, I think it might place an enormous organisational burden on the creaking public sector.

But it would be lovely if we could make it work. What would you suggest?

PasturesNew

Tax Credits enabled people to job share/work part-time and milk the system. What used to be one full-time job become a few flexible jobs from an employer's perspective. They could hire 3 people on 16 hour contracts each week, instead of one person on 48 hours - and get those 3 covering the jobs of the others when they were off.

scrooge2008

Max, I think that fc123 is making some excellent points. There is a market out there for someone who can tap into the wave length of the educated job seeker.

It's a new frontier. There are so many people looking for the well paid job, that they used to enjoy, but the writing has been on the wall for many of these jobs for a number of years. Have you read Rich Dad, Poor Dad? Not as well written as a lot of your posts, but he could see what was coming and has made a fortune.

Those with entrepreneurial spirits, who keep positive and find the angles will rise to the top. It's that fine balance between the Unemployment is making me miserable type posts, which people relate to, but ultimately get bored with and want to start giving the writer a kick up the a*se along with a copy of anything written by Norman Vincent Peale, to the Pollyanna approach which is unrealistic and annoying. A blogger who gets the balance right, and guides the shell shocked through the maze could become a legend ........ I'm rooting for you.

treliac

LydiaJ wrote: »

And above all, what kinds of jobs do you think would be suitable for this? It's all very well saying that the employer doesn't have to pay if the job isn't done on a particular day, but most jobs need doing every day. If the customers turn up and there's nobody there, it's a problem. What happens if the people do the job badly? In a business context, one stupid employee being unhelpful or even offensive to customers can lose you business that it may take a long time to replace. If this system could only apply to the kinds of public service roles that vivatifosi suggests, I think it might place an enormous organisational burden on the creaking public sector.

But it would be lovely if we could make it work. What would you suggest?

Jobshares aren't that uncommon and can work just fine. If one of the jobshare 'partners' falls short in their performance, they can be addressed in the same way as anyone failing to do their job properly. There are potential advantages for both job sharers and for employers who support these arrangements.

I agree with viva, in that there is lots of work that could be done by the unemployed, to improve our communities, in return for the financial support they are given.

LydiaJ

treliac wrote: »

Jobshares aren't that uncommon and can work just fine. If one of the jobshare 'partners' falls short in their performance, they can be addressed in the same way as anyone failing to do their job properly. There are potential advantages for both job sharers and for employers who support these arrangements.

I agree with viva, in that there is lots of work that could be done by the unemployed, to improve our communities, in return for the financial support they are given.

We seem to be at cross purposes. I agree that job shares can be a great thing all round when they're handled well and the people sharing are motivated to make it work.

I thought your post was responding to JayScottGreenspan's suggestion of making unemployed people do some work in order to get their benefits. I couldn't see how your buddy system would overcome the problems associated with making it compulsory, as per my previous post: suitability of jobs for people, and disadvantages to employers, especially of poor performance by people who have been forced to take the job just to get benefits.

While I agree with viva that there are lots of things that unemployed people could usefully do, I think there may be a lot of problems associated with withdrawing benefit if they don't do those things. Actually, I suspect that there might even be problems with official attempts to organise volunteers to do those things. I think people would start complaining that if councils could get such things done for free or very cheaply by volunteers, then that would take jobs away from people who might otherwise have been employed to do those things. Then people would start saying that the volunteers should be paid at least a minimum wage for doing it, and then you're effectively creating a new raft of public sector minimum wage jobs.

It might work better if it wasn't organised by anyone in authority, though. A charity, or a residents association, or a church or mosque or something, might be able to organise volunteers to do stuff, and get the council to cooperate about access and permission and stuff, without upsetting people in the way I think they would get upset if it was organised by the council or the jobcentre.

treliac

LydiaJ wrote: »

We seem to be at cross purposes. I agree that job shares can be a great thing all round when they're handled well and the people sharing are motivated to make it work.

I thought your post was responding to JayScottGreenspan's suggestion of making unemployed people do some work in order to get their benefits. I couldn't see how your buddy system would overcome the problems associated with making it compulsory, as per my previous post: suitability of jobs for people, and disadvantages to employers, especially of poor performance by people who have been forced to take the job just to get benefits.

While I agree with viva that there are lots of things that unemployed people could usefully do, I think there may be a lot of problems associated with withdrawing benefit if they don't do those things. Actually, I suspect that there might even be problems with official attempts to organise volunteers to do those things. I think people would start complaining that if councils could get such things done for free or very cheaply by volunteers, then that would take jobs away from people who might otherwise have been employed to do those things. Then people would start saying that the volunteers should be paid at least a minimum wage for doing it, and then you're effectively creating a new raft of public sector minimum wage jobs.

It might work better if it wasn't organised by anyone in authority, though. A charity, or a residents association, or a church or mosque or something, might be able to organise volunteers to do stuff, and get the council to cooperate about access and permission and stuff, without upsetting people in the way I think they would get upset if it was organised by the council or the jobcentre.

Sorry for the confusion. I was doing a BOGOF job!

The job-share - nothing to do with being forced to do anything. It works well in practice in a number of examples, freely chosen by the participants, that I have been aware of.

As for the unemployed giving a commitment to community work in exchange for benefits, I believe this works in some other countries. I also think it is a workable option for the UK and that obstacles can be circumvented with the right mindset.

IMO we get too caught up believing in 'the way things have always been done'. If we are facing huge changes in our economic and social landscape, we are going to have to radically re-think our approach to many aspects of life and society.

LydiaJ

treliac wrote: »

As for the unemployed giving a commitment to community work in exchange for benefits, I believe this works in some other countries. I also think it is a workable option for the UK and that obstacles can be circumvented with the right mindset.

IMO we get too caught up believing in 'the way things have always been done'. If we are facing huge changes in our economic and social landscape, we are going to have to radically re-think our approach to many aspects of life and society.

Oh yes, I agree with that. But we'll only be able to do that if we think hard about what the problems are likely to be, and consider in advance what to do about them. Unfortunately, recent governments have rather more of a track record of rushing through legislation without properly considering its probable unintended consequences. That's why I'd love to open up the debate about how these things could actually work in practice.

treliac

LydiaJ wrote: »

unintended consequences.

Ha ha!! Could be this govt's catchphrase. The blindingly obvious consequences of so many of their policies which have hit many us hard in the face as they've been rolled out, have floated completely over the top of their miniscule, blinkered, tunnel-visioned brains.

Better stop now ...... I sound like I'm getting angry.

vivatifosi

LydiaJ wrote: »

While I agree with viva that there are lots of things that unemployed people could usefully do, I think there may be a lot of problems associated with withdrawing benefit if they don't do those things. Actually, I suspect that there might even be problems with official attempts to organise volunteers to do those things. I think people would start complaining that if councils could get such things done for free or very cheaply by volunteers, then that would take jobs away from people who might otherwise have been employed to do those things. Then people would start saying that the volunteers should be paid at least a minimum wage for doing it, and then you're effectively creating a new raft of public sector minimum wage jobs.

It might work better if it wasn't organised by anyone in authority, though. A charity, or a residents association, or a church or mosque or something, might be able to organise volunteers to do stuff, and get the council to cooperate about access and permission and stuff, without upsetting people in the way I think they would get upset if it was organised by the council or the jobcentre.

I wasn't suggesting withdrawing benefit Lydia. If anything, people doing it should be given a small additional amount (say £10 per week) and any travel costs. And by getting travel costs they shouldn't have to wait a week or a month on benefits to receive them, it should be immediate.

I also agree that this should be done by charities or some form of NGO rather than the government because the government just isn't nimble enough to respond. Having said that the government has got to be supportive and not accuse people of working, or taking time out of trying to find work.

In my life I've come across just one charity doing things like this, but that was for long term unemployed and people with learning difficulties, so that too had carved its niche, whereas I was just bored and reasonably well educated and wanting to put something back. There are of course people who would resent doing something like this and I don't think the idea is for them, but there's also a lot of people like me, who get fed up with the endless round of job applications and form filling just wanted to do something practical, useful and meaningful for a change.

treliac

vivatifosi wrote: »

there's also a lot of people like me, who get fed up with the endless round of job applications and form filling just wanted to do something practical, useful and meaningful for a change.

Which could also stand them in good stead, giving them the edge when it comes to finding a 'proper' job.