Return of the Workhouse. It's now Official

Davesnave

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Honestly? None. I don't know of any friends or relatives who've ever claimed JSA, for example.

I made my daughter do it when she left school, just to see what it was like. She thanks me now!:rotfl:

As someone with a learning disablity, and no experience other than a paper round, she found it hard to get an employer to take her on, but she sure as hell knew that the Jobcentre would'nt find her anything....and she was right.

On the subject of the 'forced to work' scheme, I once worked for the benefits agency of old, and I suspect that they still keep lists of those they think are swinging it or working on the side. It will be a small fraction of the whole and targeted, or it should be, if it is to be workable. The majority will surely need different support.

foreversummer

Davesnave wrote: »

On the subject of the 'forced to work' scheme, I once worked for the benefits agency of old, and I suspect that they still keep lists of those they think are swinging it or working on the side. It will be a small fraction of the whole and targeted, or it should be, if it is to be workable. The majority will surely need different support.

Spot on Davesnave.

lemonjelly

mardatha wrote: »

And by the by, I dare say the new companies/bodies that will spring up like mushrooms will be paid a hefty sun for organising these forced-labour parties ? And no doubt all the cabinet members will have relatives on the boards of them.. ?
Oh silly me, of course our wonderful govt wouldnt be so venal. How could I be so cynical !

Any chance capita will get in on this one?

Any chance the contracts will be awarded to firms with certain MP's/associates of MP's on their boards?

There's a fine line with this one. Some interesting debate on the first 2 pages of this thread.

The biggest hope that I would have for such a scheme, is that it has to be FAIR. Fair in it's application, and fair in its implementation. Those who are truly vulnerable, need to be protected. A society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. Those who are committing fraud, need weeding out of the system (personally I feel there is a lot more of this than we are aware).

Really enjoyed the debate between ceriweden & generali on page 1, highlighting both sides of the debate. I agree that there was a slash & burn policy in the 80's. It has made some of the work harder for Cameron, as he's got little left to cut or sell off. What else can we cut? Nothing? We'll have to get people volunteering to get it cheaper then...

Oh, & whilst swapping JSA stories, I signed on for 6 weeks or so in the early 90's. I've made up for it since though, having had 2 jobs for the past 6 years.:)

Butterfly_Brain

It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor that gets the blame
It's the rich that gets the pleasure
Ain't it all a bloomin' shame

mardatha

Never been on the dole, lemonJ, always took any job that was going and spent my spare time doing courses. But my poor OH had a nightmare time with them... because he was a skilled worker in the wrong kind of industry (iron foundry and shipbuilding) Once his trade was gone, so was his self respect and worth to society, apparently. At least in the eyes of the wee spotty erks in the JC.

cskay

I think the government has the right idea but wrong approach. Instead of putting it as forced labour, they should put it as

• short term job opportunities to prove your sincerity
• the pay should at least exceed the benefits. Shouldn't be treated as cost cutting opportunity.
• people opting for these jobs should get some brownie points similar to credit ratings lets say sincerity ratings.
• private employers advertising there jobs should be encouraged to take sincerity ratings into account while choosing the candidates. As the candidates with higher ratings would have proved that they are sincere and eager workers.
• In future checks can be made on people being continually on benefits with poor sincerity ratings.

On the other hand attaching a stigma will only do harm. I don't think anything good can come out of such self defeating approach.

Loughton_Monkey

mardatha wrote: »

Never been on the dole, lemonJ.

I hate to admit that I signed on once. Was 'in between' jobs with a huge brown envelope to tide me over. However, signing on was my 'right' so I did it for a few weeks. A long time ago, but I remember my regrets:

1. Having to pay 50p to park my BMW every fortnight while I went in to sign on.

2. The fact that I spent about 150% of the dole money on cigars alone.

Life's a !!!!!! [edit: that was meant to be b*i*t*c*h. Strange censorship. Thank God they don't run the blogs for Crufts!]

mardatha

Dont have to "admit" to claiming what you have paid into for years. Surely to god we have moved on from the days when the church and state made us feel ashamed for being flung a few crumbs !

lemonjelly

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I hate to admit that I signed on once. Was 'in between' jobs with a huge brown envelope to tide me over. However, signing on was my 'right' so I did it for a few weeks. A long time ago, but I remember my regrets:

1. Having to pay 50p to park my BMW every fortnight while I went in to sign on.

2. The fact that I spent about 150% of the dole money on cigars alone.

Life's a !!!!!! [edit: that was meant to be b*i*t*c*h. Strange censorship. Thank God they don't run the blogs for Crufts!]

were the jobcentre aware of your huge brown envelope whilst you were signing on? I am sure you are aware that this is a means tested benefit, and therefore entitlement is dependent on income & savings.

Or are you admitting benefit fraud committed by yourself?

Ms-Pacman

I've just read the below on the BBC have you say site and I have to say it sums it up perfectly.

"If this is real work needing doing I can't understand why it is not proper jobs being offered.
Duh! 30 hours work for £65 is £2.17/hour and considerably less than the minimum wage. I can see how a Tory would love this idea.

Is the government going to guarantee that the people who are currently employed to pick up litter are not going to be made unemployed in pursuit of this? Nah, thought not!
When someone is unemployed and has been unemployed for some time the boredom, humiliation, and lack of identity compels them to lie in bed until midday or later so that there is less of the day to bear. People don't do this because they don't want to work; they do it because their existence is torture.
Such people will struggle to find work and some will have lost the will to even search for it. Something does need to be done here. Sure, there are not really any jobs for them anyway but the routine/structure is valuable and essential for the restoration of self esteem which unemployment robs people of.

This is not the solution though.
It seems to me that to require the people targeted by this scheme to attend somewhere at 9am, say, to do work is reasonable. Entirely reasonable.
However, it does not seem reasonable to require them to do it for 37% of the national minimum wage. We should not be requiring people to work for more than 11 hours per week for £65 otherwise it is nothing but a source of cheap labour. Tory devalues all domestic labour and relishes it.

"Flush out". Huh. The government can't even quantify it. They don't know. It's whims and speculations.

Perhaps we are now to view anyone picking up litter not as someone who is in a viable job but instead as someone who is having their cage rattled. Law of unintended consequences, maybe. It is the people currently employed in a proper job to pick up litter that I am feeling for - there is a risk that their job will become devalued by this.

This smacks very much of another Tory divide and conquer tactic."

Cost of direct bank bailouts: £850bn
DWP estimated benefit fraud per year: £1bn
Estimated tax fraud: £30 billion per year
as taken from here. Its a pdf file from the National Fraud Department.