Neets 'should not get benefits', say MPs

lemonjelly

I got my first paper round just after my 13th birthday. I had it til I was 18. I've worked in mcdonalds, burger king, a motorway service station, a chippy (harry ramsdens no less!), in a town centre club, a couple of night clubs, a local pub, for a mates dads small business as a driver/dogsbody, & probably a couple of other things.

When I graduated, I didn't have the experience to get into the line of work I wanted. So I did 9-12 hours voluntary work a week, whilst doing twilight/night shifts in a factory to pay the bills.

I went to uni to avoid having to work in a factory. & then the first thing I do when I graduate? Get a job in a factory! (rolleyes!)

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

....
There is an additional issue. What is to stop people never leaving college - doing course after course for years, in a half hearted kinda way, never actually working? It will happen - already happens with stuff like EMA.

Plus, people on benefits usually get their courses paid for....

it used to be you couldn't get funding for the same level of course or below...having to show progression...e.g. you couldn't do endless years of a -levels, you had to go on to HND/Degree ....then after that and HND could do a degree, not another hnd with funding. Is that different now?

ninky_2

Cleaver wrote: »

Just out of interest, what jobs did everone do between the ages of about 15 to 21? .

kitchenhand/waitress in pub
library assistant
sandwich shop assistant

Out,_Vile_Jelly

"Character-forming" youthful employment:

- babysitting (I didn't and still don't like small children)
- weekend cleaning
- housekeeping (in an American motel)
- barwork (in a pub filled entirely with old men moaning about their disgusting real ale being in the "wrong type" of glass and moaning about how everything was better in ye olden dayes etc etc)
- skivvying at a beach cafe. Hateful boss, miserable colleagues and rage-inducing interaction with the thick, rude, lobster-burnt general public. Made me hate the human race and sunny summer days.

nickmason

I remember one summer when I was rejected by MacDonalds, Burger King and Wimpy. My lovely parents told me that I was clearly overqualified (despite having only O-levels/GCSEs to my name) - I suspect it was more that I had the wrong voice.

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

it used to be you couldn't get funding for the same level of course or below...having to show progression...e.g. you couldn't do endless years of a -levels, you had to go on to HND/Degree ....then after that and HND could do a degree, not another hnd with funding. Is that different now?

These rules are still in place for funding courses.
The question I'm asking is in respect of people just doing course after course to maintain an entitlement to their income replacement benefit though something analogous to the funding criteria would probably be introduced...

nickmason wrote: »

I remember one summer when I was rejected by MacDonalds, Burger King and Wimpy. My lovely parents told me that I was clearly overqualified (despite having only O-levels/GCSEs to my name) - I suspect it was more that I had the wrong voice.

When I worked at maccies we had a guy who had 2 firsts, 5 a levels. e was clever - walked round quoting Shakespeare etc. No common sense though - in 4 months he couldn't learn how to dress a hamburger, or a big mac (hamburger - mustard, ketchup, onions, pickle). Dead simple, yet he just couldn't do it.

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

T

When I worked at maccies we had a guy who had 2 firsts, 5 a levels. e was clever - walked round quoting Shakespeare etc. No common sense though - in 4 months he couldn't learn how to dress a hamburger, or a big mac (hamburger - mustard, ketchup, onions, pickle). Dead simple, yet he just couldn't do it.

But tht doesn't mean someone else wth the same qualifications couldn't have done it.

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

But tht doesn't mean someone else wth the same qualifications couldn't have done it.

I agree. Just an anecdote to highlight practical knowledge/intelligence is equally important.

carolt

nickmason wrote: »

I couldn't resist!

The prologue:
I was supposed to join the navy, and had a gap year lined up with them before going to university. With literally two days to go, that career ran aground as it transpired I had torn ligaments in my knee (ironically from a naval training course). So I had to find work for my gap year. I wrote to just about major employer I could think of, and ended up with a job at IBM, as someone had dropped out of their gap year programme. While there I became quite skilled at computers.

The lucky break:
My mother is a secretary to a man who runs a stud-farm. I did some rather elaborate quant work for him (my first degree was maths), analysing his foals and their subsequent performances. Unknown to me, one of his co-owners was Lady Rothschild, who saw the work I'd done and asked what I wanted to do when I grew up [sic]. I said I wasn't sure, after the disappointment of the Navy I was still trying to work it out. She suggested I try the city - she spoke to her brother in law, and I found myself in an interview...one acceptance, and a resigned colleague later and I was running all the forecasting models.

Impressive initiative.

Sounds well-deserved.

carolt

ninky wrote: »

or go into criminal activity. it can only work if the country can guarantee a job or training.

imagine you're a kid who has been in and out of foster care. parents don't care and won't offer help. you have no qualifications. you reach adulthood and have no one to turn to. how is cutting off your access to benefits going to help you?

i've just written about the national civic service scheme that david lammy my local mp has been proposing. his scheme is specifically aimed at neets. i think our area (tottenham) has quite a few. by making it compulsory you actually benefit the people who need it most.

I don't see how what was discussed in the OP can result in those people being without an income - the whole point is they'd get the identical benefits to the ones they currently get; just they'd have to work for them by being in education or training. Assuming they couldn't get a job. Which would surely give them a greater chance of getting a job in the future, and less time or motivation to get involved in criminal activity?