Return of the Workhouse. It's now Official

vaporate

foreversummer wrote: »

Spot on Davesnave.

I agree with this.

ejbg2001

The trouble is that things aren't clear cut. There are 5 people for each and every job vacancy right now. There are a majority of job-seeking people who are out of work long term (6 months plus) who want to work, but can't. I know some people who work in job centres and they see a minority of LT unemployed who don't want to work, they see some who want to but can't and they see a majority of those who can work and are desperately looking for work.

Employers want the right person for the job long term and currently have a choice when they have a minimum of 5 applicants per post. They would eliminate someone too over- or under-qualified, someone who isn't going to work for the company a long time (people who are nearing retirement, or using the job as a stepping stone to better work), someone who isn't reliable (people with variable health issues, disabilities, long term illnessess, caring responsibilities) etc. That is part of the reason those needing extra help in the above categories may be out of work longer than 6 months.

The very few people who don't want (or don't see why they should) work need to be targeted, but if it costs more to hit them than applying a blanket rule, you know which one the government is going to pick...

I don't have any answers, I just know that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't (morale sapping is a nasty pernicious disease).

vaporate

ejbg2001 wrote: »

The trouble is that things aren't clear cut. There are 5 people for each and every job vacancy right now. There are a majority of job-seeking people who are out of work long term (6 months plus) who want to work, but can't. I know some people who work in job centres and they see a minority of LT unemployed who don't want to work, they see some who want to but can't and they see a majority of those who can work and are desperately looking for work.

Employers want the right person for the job long term and currently have a choice when they have a minimum of 5 applicants per post. They would eliminate someone too over- or under-qualified, someone who isn't going to work for the company a long time (people who are nearing retirement, or using the job as a stepping stone to better work), someone who isn't reliable (people with variable health issues, disabilities, long term illnessess, caring responsibilities) etc. That is part of the reason those needing extra help in the above categories may be out of work longer than 6 months.

The very few people who don't want (or don't see why they should) work need to be targeted, but if it costs more to hit them than applying a blanket rule, you know which one the government is going to pick...

I don't have any answers, I just know that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't (morale sapping is a nasty pernicious disease).

Well said. My view exactly.

ceridwen

Ms-Pacman wrote: »

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.

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.

Though I do have to point out in fairness that boredom/humiliation/lack of identity would be a much more accurate description of having a job than of unemployment in my personal experience. Work equals those three things to me. Unemployment, on the other hand, equals interest/status/sense of identity and I certainly didnt stay in bed till midday when I've been unemployed. When I was unemployed it was more a case of "Right - get up - got some interesting things to do/places to go today".

BUT - I applied for every job I could and got myself back into work again each time and coped with the "wave of depression" that hit at the thought of having to deal with having a job again.

Had to say that to put the record straight as far as some of us are concerned. Just because I accept I have to "work my passage" doesnt mean I've done anything other than do the jobs concerned and tolerate it. Thats what its like for most people in work unfortunately:(

I thought the whole idea OF this scheme is purely and simply to "rattle peoples cages" - certainly not to provide anything remotely like a viable job - perish the thought in the Government's eyes...:cool:

Rochdale_Pioneers

I think the new work sets you free policy is a great idea. Perhaps IDS will next announce that the sick and disabled need to have their NI numbers tattooed on their skin for easy identification.

Loughton_Monkey

lemonjelly wrote: »

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?

Absolutely no fraud. Temporary Unemployment Benefit is an absolute right irrespective of means. [And you get your NI stamp paid!] I was sincerely looking for work (and found it).

Obviously I didn't claim (and couldn't have claimed) any other benefit.

When I came home from China to retire, I could have done the same, by the simple device of 'lying' and telling them that I was looking for a job. However, I didn't need the stamp. Wouldn't have lied about looking for a job. Would have paid only the most miserable amount for 6 months. Wouldn't even cover my gin & tonics. And nowhere to park my Jag at the local office either.

treliac

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

When I came home from China to retire, I could have done the same, by the simple device of 'lying' and telling them that I was looking for a job. However, I didn't need the stamp. Wouldn't have lied about looking for a job. Would have paid only the most miserable amount for 6 months. Wouldn't even cover my gin & tonics. And nowhere to park my Jag at the local office either.

My god, a Jag and a BMW!!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=38265630&postcount=138

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

Loughton_Monkey

treliac wrote: »

My god, a Jag and a BMW!!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=38265630&postcount=138

The BMW was late 90's. Jag is now. [Mrs Loughton Monkey restricted to Noddy Car (VW Beetle) but it's her own choice!]

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

Don't care what they say,if they're going to make people work for their unemployment benefits then they should be paying them a proper wage.
Anything else and it's just forced labour.
There is a national minimum wage is there not so if the government are stating claimants have to do work then surely legally they should be forced to pay the going rate.
Even prisoners don't get treated so badly at least they get trained in something not just forced to do menial tasks which to me is more about harrassment and humiliation than anything else.
I suppose the supervisors will be wearing "brown shirts" will they.
It's getting that way,bit by bit.

ceridwen

Hmmm...well I tend to agree with the idea in principle.

But - its all the safeguards that need to be in place:
- not taking the jobs of any paid workers
- not paying them less than JSA (+ expenses) at least
- not expecting people with a provable work record (ie they've had a job or jobs for at least 10 years) to take part
- not expecting anyone who is genuinely too ill to do so (be it disablement or a temporary genuine illness) (that really WAS beyond belief to find that a few people are claiming to be too ill to work because of being grossly obese.....no-one else was there presumably propping open their mouths and ramming food down them a la geese for foie gras...).

That IS a lot of safeguards that would need implementing and I have reservations whether there is the political will to implement those safeguards on the one hand and as to how much money it would cost to set up properly-resourced schemes on the other hand.

I dont think one can doubt that there IS a lot of work that is undone in our Society and never HAS been done/doesnt look likely to ever BE done (eg countryside clean-ups of litter etc). Picking up litter in urban areas is clearly something that streetsweepers should be doing (ie a paid job). Gardening - I cant see where gardening work would come from - other than making those Council workers redundant who look after our city parks and then replacing them with "volunteers" (again - displacing paid jobs).