wht do you think of this

leasky30

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083871/Work-dole-Jobless-work-free-risk-losing-benefits-years.html

Notmyrealname

Seems fair enough. For too long we've allowed people to live on the dole for years and years with no intention of ever working.

leasky30

so would you be glad for working at 2.25 a hour ( if over 25, less if your under 25) 30 hours a week for 6 months, and there is already 2 ongoing cases against this type of thing

Emmzi

as soon as I saw it as the Daily Mail I took my brain out so I'd be less annoyed.

Pound

I think it's wrong. Minimum wage is £6.08, yet the government are effectively forcing people to work for £2.25 per hour. I think the idea is OK in principle but working hours should be capped at 11 hours per week to bring the payment in line with NMW.

Also, this idea was tried before but businesses sacked paid employees in order to use unpaid employees instead. I don't see any reason why this idea isn't going to be putting more people onto the dole instead of less.

DVardysShadow

It just takes away NMW jobs and replaces them with community labour. It is not joined up thinking, because the very jobs that those people might otherwise aspire to are taken off the market to facilitate the scheme, thus increasing demoralisation and hopelessness

MissSarah1972

If there are jobs people can do for free then why do the Govenment not pay an incentive to companies to take on unemployed people instead of placing them somewhere no matter how long out of work to work for free. If there is work then pay them to take someone on and pay them a real wage.

dandelionclock30

They should just pay the unemployed the NMW to do some part time community work as already mentioned.Nobody should have to work for their benefits full time for £2.00 per hour.Or like its said above, cap it at 11 hours per week.
Im sorry but I dont believe theres many people who want to be on benefits especially JSA because its not enough to live on really.Its just a myth that the government perpetuates to deflect the real issues ie long term economic decline of the country.

leasky30

i don't want to be forced into working for 2 quid an hour, done it twice before cause i thought it help me get a job in IT but it didn't, now i still want to work in IT but i dont wanna be pressureised into working for supermakerts or private compaines so they can profit off not paying a wage, if there is work out there pay at least the nmw, no this pitiful amount that they want peole on jsa to work for, hopefully the 2 court cases that are coming up put an end to this

claire16c

On one hand I feel like its very unfair to make people work for what turns out to be less than the minimum wage, and perhaps it should be the 11 hours people on this post have suggested.

On the other hand, if you want to get money from the government - and have been out of work for so long that you are put onto one of these programmes, perhaps you should be working a full week - and get back into the swing of getting up every day and going to work. Also I know that the Sainsburys near me does this scheme as my friend works there, and she said that from her experience the people who have been put on this scheme are either:

1. Absolutely hating being there, dont turn up on time, do a rubbish job, etc. More hassle for the supermarket than they are worth.
2. Put a lot of effort in, and have therefore been rewarded with a job. She said one guy had been out of work for a long time, had a wife and kid to support and when Sainsburys offered him a job he was over the moon, almost in tears. So for some people, it can work out, and the couple of weeks he did before being offered a proper job, were well worth it.

I suppose you could say - why couldnt he have just applied for the Sainsburys job direct in the first place - but then not everyone is good at filling out forms or interviews. So he managed to bypass both of those and get a jobb, which will inturn make it easier for him to find others in the future.

pitkin2020

In fairness though this is targetted at people who have been out of employment for over 3 years so this could in fact be seen as a positive thing for them back on the road to employment. Whilst the pay would be poor they will be gaining some new experiences and skills they can take forward to proper employment aswell as showing commitment to working again. 3 years is a long time to not be working if your fit for work.

I do think maybe a few less hours though or atleast the possibility of earning OVER what they would get in benefits would be good encouragement to show people what they could be earning if they did get a full time job. I don't think these people should be sent to private companies either for them to exploit the low rate of pay unless they agree to take staff on after say 1 month of continuous service. That way the government get extra money from the company to cover the costs/benefits with the hope of taking 1 more person off the benefit system.

A lot of people see people on benefits as scrougers and the alike but sometimes its just a series of unfortunate events. Employers generally don't help the situation as they aren't all willing to take people on who have large gaps in their employment history, time moves on and those gaps get even larger. At least with this scheme these people can have something new to add to the CV, surely that can only be a positive.