Return of the Workhouse. It's now Official

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yet, not the general lack of available jobs one ? Nor what the cuts mean regarding unemployment very shortly ?

Honestly Generali.. you think this will solve anything ? So quick to feel superior and curl your lip about this.

But never something you'd want to do yourself of course and certainly something you'd NEVER want to have to put on your CV. Like Ian Duncan Smith/Osbourne and Cameron.. You're simply out of touch with the real world. Too safe, distanced and too used to being secure to have any meaningful real idea.. nor insight (beyond verbal forum 'sparring') as to what this REALLY means.. Sorry.

You haven't got a clue about me. I did my bit of earning £103 a week as a barman and living in a very damp shared flat in a grotty bit of South London. I went to my local comp and got up to a decent level in my career through persistence and hard work combined of course with a little luck.

Just because I'm reasonably successful, don't think I'm of the Old School Tie who got it all handed to him on a plate. Far from it in fact.

As to 'too used to being secure', I lost everything, financially, 3 years ago and am in the process of working hard to get back to the position I'd like to be in. The first job I did in Sydney was canvassing shoppers for telephone numbers so that telesalesmen could call them.

You haven't got a clue about me. It's easier to jump to a conclusion and use all your prejudices about people that are doing better in their financial lives than you.

chris_m

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

The only fault I can find is an obvious mis-print, no doubt caused by the journalists' strike. It says "four-week". Surely he means 52 week? It would make sense then.

Four weeks sounds reasonable to me - the point is to try and instil a work ethic in those who have lost it or never had it in the first place, whilst making it difficult for those who are claiming JSA but also working on the QT. If it were made 52 weeks that could make it harder for those who genuinely want to work to find a job.

If it provides some form of report/reference at the end of the four weeks it could also assist those who do want to work because they would be able to provide evidence of reliability, etc. to a potential employer.

Generali

chris_m wrote: »

Four weeks sounds reasonable to me - the point is to try and instil a work ethic in those who have lost it or never had it in the first place, whilst making it difficult for those who are claiming JSA but also working on the QT. If it were made 52 weeks that could make it harder for those who genuinely want to work to find a job.

If it provides some form of report/reference at the end of the four weeks it could also assist those who do want to work because they would be able to provide evidence of reliability, etc. to a potential employer.

TBH, and speaking as someone who was unemployed for quite a while, if you don't work for a long time your confidence goes. You don't know, or at least I didn't know, if you are even capable of holding down a job. 4 weeks in a job you don't really care very much about might be just the thing some people need to give them a kick up the 'Arris ' that they need.

chris_m

Generali wrote: »

TBH, and speaking as someone who was unemployed for quite a while, if you don't work for a long time your confidence goes. You don't know, or at least I didn't know, if you are even capable of holding down a job. 4 weeks in a job you don't really care very much about might be just the thing some people need to give them a kick up the 'Arris ' that they need.

I know exactly what you mean - I was also in that position some 20+ years ago. I was somewhat lucky in that I managed to pick up a temporary job which then turned into a permanent one after a couple of weeks. 20+ years later the "temp" is still there

ceridwen

Hmmm...:think:...that leads me off into all sorts of trains of thought.

1. I agree with the idea basically

2. I have a concern that this might get exploited (eg by employers seeking to get cheap labour) and what safeguards are there going to be to prevent that?

3. Would I personally do that if I were in that position? Being totally honest...not that likely...insert the word "manual" labour into the equation and not a hope in hell....:rotfl:(which would bring me to another concern - ie would they try and force middle-aged people who HAD clearly held down a job/developed good working habits into manual work when they had never done it before and their health/energy levels would not allow for starting that type of work now?).

Davesnave

I imagine this will be very popular with most, except the selected claimants and the people charged with the job of keeping them at it for four weeks. Come to think of it, who will they be?

Any offers? I'm too old, obviously.

blue_haddock

i like the bit where it states they can also target people they believe to be working on the side to disrupt their ill gotten gains.

I'm all for it personally.

ceridwen

blue_haddock wrote: »

i like the bit where it states they can also target people they believe to be working on the side to disrupt their ill gotten gains.

I'm all for it personally.

Again...mixed feelings there...doncha just hate ceridwen when shes in "To be fair...on the other hand" mode?:rotfl:

....but I have been on the dole myself before now and managed on the money BUT BUT BUT that was many years ago now (ie before benefits had the massive cuts they have had in recent years). If I were on the dole again I would not be able to manage on the money (even if I had the exact same set of circumstances - ie cheaper place to live, the troublefree health record I had then, etc, etc). So - there would simply be no option but to either dig into my savings or do a "bit on the side". Okays - I'd probably start by digging into my savings - but, once they were down to negligible levels (ie keeping a tiny bit by for emergencies - such as the dentist charging me more than normal, etc) then what option would I have but to do a "bit on the side" if I could get it?

So - if the choice is between "doing a bit on the side" or going into debt - then I doubt very many people at all would go into debt in order to cover for the fact that benefit is too low to manage on (well - it is if you're childless.....).

ash28

Workfare in the US has hardly been an unqualified success - to me it seems like another another import from across the pond.

In some places they called it "work displacement" - because employers did get rid of staff and used Workfare people instead, nor is it long enough to give people a work ethic.

In principle I don't have anything against people doing something in return for their benefits as long as it doesn't impact those already employed doing some of the menial jobs mentioned like litter picking etc. It will be tempting for many organisations who have jobs that require little or no training to use the unemployed and get rid of their own staff. If there is protection for existing workers I might be more in favour of the scheme.

Even in the voluntary sector people who genuinely want to help and volunteer could be displaced by people who will be there unwillingly - or is there an unlimited number of voluntary jobs?

As I said I have no objection in principle as long as it is done properly, with employers unable to get rid of existing workers. Otherwise it will end up like the old YTS schemes where virtually no one ended up with a job it was a case of one in - one out.

amcluesent

Yep, what these kids need is a short, sharp, shock. Just getting them in at 8am for a week will be a struggle, apart from all the robbing and thieving after they turn up. Most will be druggies for sure, so they'll be sniffing any chemicals left about and sneaking off to shoot-up.

But I expect for every 6 dole boys working, we'll have an 'elf'n'safety jobsworth, 'humin-rights inspector and a multi-culti translator ticking boxes and checking emails on their crackberrys.

#All day long they work so hard
Till the sun is goin' down
Working on the highways and byways
And wearing, wearing a frown
You hear them moanin' their lives away
Then you hear somebody sa-ay

That's the sound of the men working on the chain ga-a-ang
That's the sound of the men working on the chain gang#