Government plough £1bn into "soft jobs"

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't disagree with you. But on the other hand, I don't see the point in creating jobs, when obviously, these jobs are not needed?

Can you "enforce" new industries to carry the made up jobs? I don't know.

Companies, councils and charities are bidding for the money for the jobs - no need to force them into "carrying" the made up jobs.

I did see a list of bidders - I'll see if I can find.

nearlynew

Your mistrust of the government is admirable graham.

You are learning fast. Well done.

Graham_Devon

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Companies, councils and charities are bidding for the money for the jobs - no need to force them into "carrying" the made up jobs.

I did see a list of bidders - I'll see if I can find.

See I believe your sidestepping the point.

They can bid for the money all they like. But unless they take on the people sent, they won't recieve the money.

The picture you paint is rosy. But the reality comes back to the fact that the only people they can employ with this money is the people sent to them. Those people wil HAVE to take the jobs. Turn them down, they lose their benefits.

Makes no difference whether councils bid for the money, play scracthcards for it, or jump through hoops.

The same people will be sent to those jobs.

Do you really think for one second the council will be able to just turn these people down when the WHOLE point of the exercise was to get people off unemployment? You think the government is going to sllow them to send people away and not take people on when the money is specifically to reduce unemployment of these very people?

baileysbattlebus

Here is the list of bidders or rather the list of awards.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/campaigns/futurejobsfund/fjf-awards-july2009.pdf

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

See I believe your sidestepping the point.

They can bid for the money all they like. But unless they take on the people sent, they won't recieve the money.

The picture you paint is rosy. But the reality comes back to the fact that the only people they can employ with this money is the people sent to them. Those people wil HAVE to take the jobs. Turn them down, they lose their benefits.

Makes no difference whether councils bid for the money, play scracthcards for it, or jump through hoops.

The same people will be sent to those jobs.

Do you really think for one second the council will be able to just turn these people down when the WHOLE point of the exercise was to get people off unemployment? You think the government is going to sllow them to send people away and not take people on when the money is specifically to reduce unemployment of these very people?

I admit to being a "glass half full" person.
The councils etc, won't be turning them down - people have to apply and go for an interview - it will be interesting to see how big the uptake is next year.

If what is being said and proposed is a load of b*llox - then so be it.

But the unemployed young make up about 40% of the jobless total - an awful lot. If this scheme gets them off benefits and into some form of work even if it's for 6 months - it could give some of them their first taste of work - who knows some of them might even like it.

I can remember the YOP scheme introduced in the late 1970's and the YTS scheme from the 1980's - now these truly were "make work" programmes, they were nationally administered and employers used to use the kids as cheap labour. And get rid of them as soon as they were too old - then take on another one.

Instead of making the kids more employable it had the opposite affect for a lot - they became the least attractive to employ - the one's who couldn't get a proper job.

The vacancies will be notified to Jobcentre Plus and they will refer eligible claimants to suitable Future Job vacancies using the same process as for any other vacancy.
A jobseeker will have to demonstrate they have made appropriate efforts to secure the job, otherwise they may be sanctioned.
However, any eligible person can apply directly – they do not have to be referred by Jobcentre Plus. This means that other organisations – such as DWP providers and local organisations – can refer people to the vacancies and help them apply.
Some general guidelines on the recruitment process:

• There should be competitive interviews for all Future Jobs.
• If the job requires a Criminal Record Bereau (CRB) check then this will need to be planned into the recruitment time.
• The process should be quick – don’t leave unemployed applicants hanging around.
• Good job matches are important – bad ones lead to a negative experience for the employee and employer.
• Consider whether there should be any pre-interview support providing information on the job and advice on interview techniques.
• Help unsuccessful applicants get appropriate feedback.

epz_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

See I believe your sidestepping the point.

They can bid for the money all they like. But unless they take on the people sent, they won't recieve the money.

The picture you paint is rosy. But the reality comes back to the fact that the only people they can employ with this money is the people sent to them. Those people wil HAVE to take the jobs. Turn them down, they lose their benefits.

Makes no difference whether councils bid for the money, play scracthcards for it, or jump through hoops.

The same people will be sent to those jobs.

Do you really think for one second the council will be able to just turn these people down when the WHOLE point of the exercise was to get people off unemployment? You think the government is going to sllow them to send people away and not take people on when the money is specifically to reduce unemployment of these very people?

correct me if i'm wrong but council bosses get paid on the number of employees so they are already incentivised to employ numbers not quality already. its one of the reasons many of the numpties i know have a job.

stuartm1

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I can remember the YOP scheme introduced in the late 1970's and the YTS scheme from the 1980's - now these truly were "make work" programmes, they were nationally administered and employers used to use the kids as cheap labour. And get rid of them as soon as they were too old - then take on another one.

Instead of making the kids more employable it had the opposite affect for a lot - they became the least attractive to employ - the one's who couldn't get a proper job.

I was a YTS in 1991 - earned £17.50 for 35hrs work a week.... oh and they covered my train fare.

It was a diabolical scheme just to keep the unemployment figures down. I also had to pay poll tax whilst being a YTS and it was about 5 weeks YTS pay (approx £85 for the year) which was even more scandalous. In the second year of YTS my salary doubled to £35 and I felt like a millionaire:rolleyes: I had 5 o'grade passes back then but there was no jobs for school leavers - it was YTS or nothing. I don't know what 50p an hour would be worth in todays money but it's still way below half of todays minimum wage.

I agree the government needs to get people out working but not by creating artificial jobs. We need plumbers, NHS dentists, electricians etc - not Dance Classes and Loft Laggers.

Generali

Government 'make work' schemes aren't necessarily a bad idea, it's just this hasn't been thought through.

Why not get these people doing something useful? They could repair roads or insulate old peoples' houses for example. If the Government was borrowing money (taking consumption from the future to use today) to invest in something that would make tomorrow and today better, that would be a good idea. To borrow that money and blow it all on wine, women and dance teachers is just a waste.

BritRael

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...The jobs are not needed, because the jobs are being "invented". Therefore, they are not jobs that are required in the normal runnings on the country or the economy..../QUOTE]

This is a good point. It's also very common. A couple of years ago, my unemployed nephew was told to take 're-training' or lose benifits. Re-training offered? Doorman! (bouncer to you and me). He's 5' 8" and around 10st. He said the course had several alcoholics and drug addicts on it with him. Sounds like real good candidates for bouncers huh? :rolleyes:

lynzpower

I agree Gen.

Or if you were using young workers to generate money for the state, then Id also agree with this, ( you really need a lot more people giving out 50 quid fines for dropping litter- london is a joke how litter is just dumped) Or working on environmental pollution - somethng where the taxpayer at large picks up the tab - if the individual cant be found.

At least generate some money rather than spend it.

Personally as discussed on LBC yesterday, this money should be distrivbuted to those with apprentices, especiallty in the building trade, some young people are part way though and have to be let go because the ownner cant afford the 80 per week for another 2 years.