Mandatory Work Activity

allen35

You forgot to mention that it pays for private firm x's chief exec in a castle

yappycat

allen35 wrote: »

You forgot to mention that it pays for private firm x's chief exec in a castle

Dag nammit!! They have castles too! :eek:
This is far far worse than I originally thought! :rotfl:

Butterfly_Brain

Would you work 36 hours for £65? I know I wouldn't

nannytone_2

you wouldnt be working for £65 a week. there's also housing benefit, council tax benefit, free prescriptons, free dental, free opticians, free kids school meals, free uniform grants.......................

john539

nannytone wrote: »

you wouldnt be working for £65 a week. there's also housing benefit, council tax benefit, free prescriptons, free dental, free opticians, free kids school meals, free uniform grants.......................

If they apply & are regular, some of those are one-offs which may not be claimed.

You could be working for equivalent of £65 a week if you don't claim any of the others.

nannytone_2

you would at minimum get free health costs...................so people should do nothing in exchange for their benefit?

if a person is healthy, they should be accepting any work trial or experience that they are offered!

yappycat

nannytone wrote: »

...if a person is healthy, they should be accepting any work trial or experience that they are offered!

And here is the crux of it, they going to apply this scheme to ESA claimants. How many people do you reckon there are on ESA who failed the harsh medical, did not appeal it for whatever reason and are nevertheless still unfit for work? There are gonna be a helluva lot of people who get sent on this work program when they shouldn't and will suffer and struggle as a result. These are the folk who will likely be the ones hit by benefit sanction (which some have argued is the whole point of this scheme) as a result of failing to satisfy yet another harsh set of criteria and expectation.

martinthebandit

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Would you work 36 hours for £65? I know I wouldn't

If thats the most I would earn then yes I would, and I would carry on doing it till a better paying job came along.

Personally I think that the maximum benefits that anyone could get should be limited to 80% of the minimum wage for a 40 hour week.

exprog

For £65 per week with a minimum wage of £5.93 per hour, they should be made to work 11 hours.

That would be fair. Not that fairness has anything to do with the nutters foaming at the mouth to see the victims punished; provided it doesn't happen to them, 'natch.

Richardsct

The likes of 'nannytone' should bear in mind that a succesful scheme should help someone get off benefits permanently - most of the 'work placements' seem nothing short of state sponsored slave labour

by all means train the unemployed for work but don't persecute the vast majority of jsa claimants who are genuine and would much rather earn a wage

has this man/woman? actually been on one of the schemes?
at least then they would be putting their money where their mouth is instead of spouting such vitriolic and biased rubbish