Return of the Workhouse. It's now Official

neverdespairgirl

ceridwen wrote: »

(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

What massive cuts are they, then?

jonnyd281

I think it's a brilliant idea, a few years ago Look East did a piece about immigrant workers picking potatos and other farm manual labour type jobs, the farmer stated on TV he couldn't get locals to apply for the jobs, hence the reason he was using immigrants.

The programme then went to outside the job center and grab the people going in to collect their gyro and said would you like a job paying £6 an hour and they said yes, when they found out what it was they said they would rather claim their gyro.

ceridwen

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

What massive cuts are they, then?

The ones that happened back in the 1980s.

Basic benefit got cut (in real terms) if I recall aright

The fuel allowance money I had was removed

The water rates money I had was removed.

There were grants (rather than Social Fund loans - if you're lucky) if some expensive necessity household item had to be replaced (eg a cooker or a bed).

People got full adult rate of benefit on becoming adults (think that meant 18 not 21?) - rather than having to wait till 25 to do so.

They started restricting the amount of mortgage interest payable.

They told single people they werent allowed to have rent paid for a place bigger than a 1 bedroom flat (ie "You're in a 2 bedroom place - so move).

It used to be possible to keep a large chunk of the money obtainable from taking in a lodger - not any more.

Non means-tested benefit was payable for a year and extra given according to previous level of salary paid (its now only 6 months and there has been no linking to previous salary for quite some time).

Think theres a lot more - but thats the first ones that I remember.

Generali

ceridwen wrote: »

The ones that happened back in the 1980s.

Basic benefit got cut (in real terms) if I recall aright

The fuel allowance money I had was removed

The water rates money I had was removed.

They started restricting the amount of mortgage interest payable.

They told single people they werent allowed to have rent paid for a place bigger than a 1 bedroom flat (ie "You're in a 2 bedroom place - so move).

It used to be possible to keep a large chunk of the money obtainable from taking in a lodger - not any more.

Non means-tested benefit was payable for a year and extra given according to previous level of salary paid (its now only 6 months and there has been no linking to previous salary for quite some time).

Think theres a lot more - but thats the first ones that I remember.

The less pleasant you make life on the dole, the fewer will claim. That is a truism.

The choice then is how to you want to split the expense of a welfare state and the desire for everyone to have a lovely life.

The [STRIKE]row[/STRIKE] debate we had the other week about child benefit is a good example. Some people, want everyone to have a lovely life at someone else's expense. I think, where possible, people should support themselves.

olly300

lilac_lady wrote: »

If someone's FORMERLY disabled, they could do it.

Not necessarily.

If you were claiming ESA for a bad back, for being in a wheelchair part time, having to use crutches part of the time or quite a few physical disabilities if you are now one of the people being told by assessors that you are capable of working due to passing their tests then doing simple manual labour would either not be possible or would leave you being extremely ill after one session.

I know people with bad backs (most of whom actually work) they know what they can and can't do.

For example one of my friends' with a bad back was painting skirting boards because she decided she was fit enough to do it. She ended up having a spasm and being frozen in a position for an hour until her husband came and moved her as he know what she had had to do. If she was doing something with a similar movement on a workfare program then an ambulance would have to be called and she would have had to be taken to A&E. In the case at home no other medical intervention was needed because the knowledge was there to deal with the issue in such a scheme it would have cost the NHS (us) money.

Then you have the people with learning difficulties who are being told they are fit enough to work. If you have ever interacted with someone who has learning difficulties but can function at work how would you like to be a manager/supervisor of such scheme and have to deal with 5 such people at once? Especially when their needs and behaviours even if they had the same condition would be different.

ceridwen

Generali wrote: »

The less pleasant you make life on the dole, the fewer will claim. That is a truism.

The choice then is how to you want to split the expense of a welfare state and the desire for everyone to have a lovely life.

The [STRIKE]row[/STRIKE] debate we had the other week about child benefit is a good example. Some people, want everyone to have a lovely life at someone else's expense. I think, where possible, people should support themselves.

I do agree that people should support themselves - hence I dont agree with child benefit.

However - many of those on the dole don't choose to be so - so its not fair to penalise them for being in this position.

Hence - I wonder just who this workfare scheme is aimed at? Is it aimed at those who really ARE "workshy" or would it be a broad brush approach and they would even try to force those who are provably not "workshy" (as they've held down jobs for years or have lots of proof that they couldnt get one in the first place on leaving education).?

Generali

ceridwen wrote: »

I do agree that people should support themselves - hence I dont agree with child benefit.

However - many of those on the dole don't choose to be so - so its not fair to penalise them for being in this position.

Hence - I wonder just who this workfare scheme is aimed at? Is it aimed at those who really ARE "workshy" or would it be a broad brush approach and they would even try to force those who are provably not "workshy" (as they've held down jobs for years or have lots of proof that they couldnt get one in the first place on leaving education).?

I guess that's why workfare kicks in after a while on the dole. Long-term claimants are used as a proxy for can't be bothered to get a job in the same way that top rate of tax is used as a proxy for well off.

It's not perfect but it's probably good enough.

Graham_Devon

I've been suggesting such a thing for ages. You can go back 2 years and you'll find me suggesting this sort of thing.

Regarding the "it will put people out of jobs". Can see the concern, however, ever been sat on the M6 in a traffic jam? Had a look around you? It's filthy. All it needs is litter picking in between the sections and on the bankings. One time I was going along slowly and literally couldn't see the grass, it was covered in litter.

There are plenty of things which could be done, in which you chuck a load of people on a minibus and off you go, drive to the areas that don't get served, and sort it out.

Regarding the minimum wage part....It's easily more than minimum wage if you take say 6 months JSA payments and roll them up into 4 weeks labour. I'm not sure legally where this stands, but my basic thoughts are if people can't expect money for nothing, but expect more money when they do have to do something for that free money.

I only think this should be targetted at those out of work for over 6 months.

Overall....don't think it will get off the ground. Far too many people ready to make sure it doesn't happen, and human rights etc will be the first hurdle, which it will probably fall at once those against it have sunk their teeth into it.

The one question I do have for all those sorts of people is, "what is the alternative". Seems just leaving them taking money from the state is the alternative.

girleight@

I think they would have to monitor it quite carefully as there would be a real risk of it costing people their jobs. So you get experience as a litter picker through workfare and want to apply for a job- but there are no jobs as a litter picker as it is all done by "volunteers".

Generali

girleight@ wrote: »

I think they would have to monitor it quite carefully as there would be a real risk of it costing people their jobs. So you get experience as a litter picker through workfare and want to apply for a job- but there are no jobs as a litter picker as it is all done by "volunteers".

True. However perhaps the litter picking job gives you a bit of confidence to realise you can work so you get a job washing the pots 'n' plates in your local pub. Then maybe you decide to get a basic hygiene certificate so you can be a commis chef in your local bistro. Then maybe your boss suggests you do a day-release so you can learn to cook and later promotes you to chef-de-partie.

There are so many things that annoy me about entire generations just subsisting on the dole. One of the biggest is that it's a huge waste of talent. British taxpayers pay a fortune to ensure that the vast majority are literate and numerate. It's crazy to have all that talent watching TV and waiting for the pub to open.