Benefits shake-up: warning for non-working claimants

marycanary

I can't see how this will work. I recently got a low paid part time job after been unemployed for a few months. We have been told by HR that 3000 people applied for 30 jobs. Anyone one who did not want a job could have easily turned up for the interview and not tried very hard. No employer is going to take on anyone who does not really, really want to work when there are another 99 people to choice from.

Anyone who does not want to work round here will find it very easy not to get hired while looking as if they are trying very hard. A few weeks on work experience then back on the dole for the rest of the year.

Mary

tcr_3

I'm more interested in the Universal Credit proposals ... they're planning on UC being introduced for new claimants from 2013 with everyone changed to that scheme from 2015.

Quite where that leaves Income Support/Incapacity Benefit migration to ESA I really don't know. Can't see any virtue converting those cases to ESA, only to convert them again to UC ... bit pointless.

And quite how they propose merging 30+ benefits into one God alone knows especially considering they're getting rid of another 9,000+ jobs in Job Centre Plus, on top of the many thousands of fixed term staff paid off over the last few months.

JimmyTheWig

alwaysonthego wrote: »

If you really want to be politically correct it should be "Addressing the concerns of people with disabilties". Your statement suggests that the person is disabled rather than they have a disabilty

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability#People-first_language, in the UK, the term "disabled people" is generally preferred to "people with disabilities". Consider, Disabled Peoples' International, Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Royal National Institute of Blind People, etc.

Oldernotwiser

ViolaLass wrote: »

I suspect fewer people worked 200 years ago than work now, as percentage of the population.

If you didn't work 200 years ago you starved! Numbers in waged employment is a completely different thing.

DJFearRoss

Why do people keep saying the 'Government should create jobs' to get people off benefits?
I rather my tax money didn't go to some civil servants to check their email and write messages on facebook.

alwaysonthego_2

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability#People-first_language, in the UK, the term "disabled people" is generally preferred to "people with disabilities". Consider, Disabled Peoples' International, Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Royal National Institute of Blind People, etc.

Sorry to take this off topic

Wikipedia is not a credible academic source, however it depends what perspective you are looking at it from. The term you use is from the medical model who believe that the disability is the problem of the person so society does not have to change to include that person. So they will label an individual by their illness i.e that anorexic person instead of Katie who has anorexia. Whereas the social model would look at it as the person is living with a disability and how society can adapt so that person can feel included.

frank_begbie

pwales wrote: »

nah i think they mean taking money off benefits to bring there income less than minimum wage so you would be better off working, i cant see tham giving extra

When you only receive the bare minimum to survive when on Job Seekers how can they make it less?

Surely they should be making work more attractive by increasing the wages?

Its not that the benefits are too high its that the wages are too low.

quantic

frank_begbie wrote: »

When you only receive the bare minimum to survive when on Job Seekers how can they make it less?

Surely they should be making work more attractive by increasing the wages?

Its not that the benefits are too high its that the wages are too low.

With housing benefit structured how it currently is, it is possible to claim much more than someone on minimum wage earns, who in there right mind would work for less then they get for 'free'.

liam8282

frank_begbie wrote: »

When you only receive the bare minimum to survive when on Job Seekers how can they make it less?

Surely they should be making work more attractive by increasing the wages?

Its not that the benefits are too high its that the wages are too low.

Increasing wages is not the answer, if you increase wages you increase inflation.

People will then end up needing a wheelbarrow full of cash, or a £1,000,000 note to go and buy a loaf of bread.

wotsthat

When you only receive the bare minimum to survive when on Job Seekers how can they make it less?

By giving you nothing.

Surely they should be making work more attractive by increasing the wages?

They are trying to make work more attractive by making the taper between increased pay and reduced benefits less severe.

Also by reducing benefits it will make work attractive as there will be a bigger gap between even the lowest paid work and benefits