'Should we starve the jobless back to work?' poll discussion

Cerisa

"Once you become unemployed you are only given vouchers but these have to be worked for - if you are fit and able."

Thing is this would mean they wouldn't have the time to search for work. In America, often it means working extremely long hours miles away from their home, which is a *nightmare* if they have dependents. The jobs are also usually very menial, so the person doesn't gain any actual skills. Personally I think it perpetuates unemployment.

Big Mumma F: agreed. Taking small jobs from agencies because they 'might lead to something' more often than not left me out of pocket.

Anxious Mum: "Taking into account that they are eligible for council tax reduction due to low income, fares to and from interviews, clothing allowances for interviews, and help with their rent, heating allowances in cold weather".

This is all great, except no one tells you you are entitled to any of this. If you happen to find out, fab, but in actuality most people don't know and don't assume.

honey10

Cerisa wrote: »

Anxious Mum: "Taking into account that they are eligible for council tax reduction due to low income, fares to and from interviews, clothing allowances for interviews, and help with their rent, heating allowances in cold weather".

This is all great, except no one tells you you are entitled to any of this. If you happen to find out, fab, but in actuality most people don't know and don't assume.

my dad is currently in this situation, he was made redundant in November last year, and because of his age and certain health problems along with the lack of jobs out there, hes still looking. he has learnt to use a computer and the internet so he can job hunt every day.
He spends at least £5 a week getting to the jobcentre, and out of the £65 he gets, it doesnt leave much, especially when he is trying to pay bills, feed himself well etc and no-one at the jobcentre told him he can claim for interview costs or things like that. personally i think thats disgraceful. also, he doesnt qualify for help, despite the fact he has a loan secured on his house, which is over £120 a month... because its not a mortgage he cant claim any help with it, even though it takes around half his money a month. its completely ridiculous.

marko2002

As with any debt, it's always important to make sure you keep contact with the company you owe money to, at the end of the day they can't get blood from a stone and will find it extremely difficult to get any court to agree to any form of action towards your dad so long as he is attempting to pay at least something towards these debts. I was in the same boat myself a few years back after being made redundant, 2 credit cards and both threatened legal action, I offered them both £20 per month until I was able to get back on my feet and on the basis they stopped all interest and charges which they refused. I then told them they could take me to court if they wished, but this was as much as I could afford and if they thought a Sheriff (Scotland) could get more from me then good luck, but they would be responsible for the court costs given I've already stated my position and there was little I could do about it, needless to say they both accepted the agreement without any further question.
Remember, it's not anyone's fault when they are made redundant, it happens, but you need to safeguard what income you have to get through the bad times, never offer more than you can afford, if it's £5 per month then so be it, you've still made an offer that they cannot technically refuse, and even if they do they will seldom pursue it unless it's regarding a huge amount - stand firm and don't worry too much, the law believe it or not is often on our side in these cirumstances

honey10

Thanks marko2002. He's paying the full amount on the loan despite me telling him that token payments temporarily would suffice, as long as he kept them in the loop. To be honest I think he's still a little thrown by his missold PPI and the fact he was made redundant in the first place, especially since the 'liqidating' company is still very much up and running,and advertising for staff. The thing that worries me is what he's sacrificing to pay those payments, and why on earth he doesn't qualify for any help...

marko2002

If the company are advertising a job that your dad had they are out of order. The only way a company can get round this is if they change the job description or it's a completely different job altogether, otherwise (I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure of this one) they are legally obliged to offer that job to the same person again within a certain time period - meaning they can't just lay someone off and they advertise their job a few weeks or months later. Might be worth investigating

ceridwen

adouglasmhor wrote: »

So someone like my cousin who was laid off from her job when pregnant - no benefits for her kids?

Nope. Just applying to people who became pregnant AFTER losing their job.

ceridwen

glider3560 wrote: »

If you don't smoke or drink, then you shouldn't have any problem spending vouchers instead of cash

..and perhaps you could explain exactly why you think its okay to rob someone of their personal choice as to which goods to get because they have been made unemployed due to no fault of their own? Perhaps also you could persuade them of a way not to feel demeaned at having to haul out vouchers (instead of cash) to pay for their goods?

If I were put in a position where any of my income was given to me in the form of vouchers - then I would feel obliged to explain to everyone standing nearby how come I was unemployed each time I used them (as I know they would all be likely to be standing there conducting a "judge and jury session" in their heads) - but perhaps thats the whole idea?? - ie humiliate people. I dont think thats very humane - as the only people who would feel humiliated would be those who were responsible people that happened to be unemployed because of no fault of their own. Its the career doleites who wouldnt give a darn about having to use vouchers in front of other people.

- but, as I said before, I would set out to break any voucher system the Government ever instituted:D. I've got the beginnings of a "how to break a voucher scheme if need be" tootling round in my mind now - in case its ever needed....:D. I think there would be quite a few people out to destroy any such scheme from its inception. Some sort of "buddying up" scheme to exchange vouchers for cash might be the way....I think community type places might have some sort of "exchange and mart" of a non profitmaking variety - where those not on benefit could come and buy (for face value - no profit involved) the vouchers of those on benefit. Maybe churches could be one possible place where "exchange and mart" schemes could operate from - and I can certainly think of at least one that would sit and discuss operating such a scheme if need be...

....goes off to ponder further on the practical details of "How to break a voucher scheme if need be"....just in case ...

(to forestall any further comments about identification on vouchers:
a. Now where would the unemployed find the money from to have a personal computer to do any computer verifying of vouchers anyway?

b. If need be - the unemployed would just have to use the vouchers to buy from the "approved range of goods" and the "exchange and mart" schemes would have to sell the goods bought for facevalue to those actually wanting those goods.

gems2381

ceridwen wrote: »

- but, as I said before, I would set out to break any voucher system the Government ever instituted:D. I've got the beginnings of a "how to break a voucher scheme if need be" tootling round in my mind now - in case its ever needed....:D. I think there would be quite a few people out to destroy any such scheme from its inception. Some sort of "buddying up" scheme to exchange vouchers for cash might be the way....I think community type places might have some sort of "exchange and mart" of a non profitmaking variety - where those not on benefit could come and buy (for face value - no profit involved) the vouchers of those on benefit. Maybe churches could be one possible place where "exchange and mart" schemes could operate from - and I can certainly think of at least one that would sit and discuss operating such a scheme if need be...

....goes off to ponder further on the practical details of "How to break a voucher scheme if need be"....just in case ...

(to forestall any further comments about identification on vouchers:
a. Now where would the unemployed find the money from to have a personal computer to do any computer verifying of vouchers anyway?

b. If need be - the unemployed would just have to use the vouchers to buy from the "approved range of goods" and the "exchange and mart" schemes would have to sell the goods bought for facevalue to those actually wanting those goods.

Do you really think enough working people would actually be !!!!!d to join a scheme like that? I don't, especially if there's nothing in it for them. You wouldn't even be able to sell them in the pub unless it was beneficial to the buyer. From responses on this forum most people are all for a voucher system.

To avoid the stigma of using paper vouchers they could introduce cards that looked like credit cards, the queue behind you wouldn't notice what you'd handed over so only the checkout assistant would know.

You seem to have misunderstood my idea about using the fingerprint technology from a laptop, the technology itself would be used where the vouchers were spent not verified from a home computer.

marko2002

Regarding vouchers, I think I'd have to say no I wouldn't agree with them also, the potential for embarrassment is quite high and I personally wouldn't have liked to be in that position also. No matter what technology is brought in, it would not prevent these people from selling them or simply buying items and passing them onto friends or relatives for cash if the idea was to try and stop them spending money on non-essential items, and I think it would become obvious to others that if we're using a card or vouchers issued by the government, I'd find that really degrading on top of loosing my job. At the end of the day, if someone receives a cash amount each week or fortnight it's their choice what to spend it on, this for me shouldn't be the issue here, it should be about successfully identifying those people who are unemployed and would appear not to be doing a great deal about it, those who become comfy with it and those who appear to actually embrace it - it's those people who need to be identified and dealt with, the potential cost of introducing another welfare system could be better used doing this I reckon. We're also assuming those who are made unemployed fall into the one category, spongers, which is certainly not the case, the system may already work in the US and maybe the whole idea is to embarrass people into taking low paid jobs simply to get them off the welfare system, still nothing much wrong with that as long as the government are helping cover the cost's for these people but that's not usually what happens here, someone takes a low paid job and receives a fraction of a rebate on their housing costs and usually end up on the breadline - the UK isn't the cheapest place to live as we all know and it's often the case the most determined of workers take any job and barely survive because of it - this causes it's own problems.
It used to be other poorer countries took the low paying jobs, like call centres, etc, but when we start introducing this kind of pay into this country we have to ask both the companies and the governments where this is all going, particularly when the cost of living in this country is becoming higher!?

antonia1

ceridwen wrote: »

Nope. Just applying to people who became pregnant AFTER losing their job.

Yeah, heavens forbid we should consider the welfare of the CHILDREN in this case. Yes its bad that some people make a career out of having kids, but I think that punishing the kids is very mean. As I stated earlier, this seems to be a very Victorian point of view. Perhaps these people should have their children taken away from them too? Workhouses maybe? That would stop them living off the state.

Don't get me wrong, I think that current benefits are far too generous in those cases. We do need to make sure that people are always better off working than on welfare and set the benefits at a level that doesn't allow people to buy flashy TVs etc. However, I personally couldn't live in a country that allowed children to starve, no matter what their parents had done.