wht do you think of this

david1958

leasky30 wrote: »

ive just had a search on the job centre plus site for jobs in my area, its does say 250, but the jobs from the 3/1/12 till now is 147, none which im qualified or experienced for

same,
some folk think because there is some actual jobs,
unskilled workers can apply for anything,

Glennn

I agree with the principle but it needs adjusting..... I would say anyone on JSA over 6 months has to do 10 hours work a week and be in the same format as community service. It can be ran by the local council doing community projects and maybe even giving people practical work experience (gardening, DIY, etc) that can then be put down on the CV.

Obviously people can take time off if they have interviews to attend, so if you say 2 hours per interview the claimant can get the whole week off if they can show they have 5 interviews to attend.

LadyMissA

david1958 wrote: »

same,
some folk think because there is some actual jobs,
unskilled workers can apply for anything,

and the same for skilled workers applying for non skilled work will just get thrown in the bin

exprog

vickynleon wrote: »

i personally think it ... but some people do need to have a kick up the bum and do something,

And is that true because it's what you think? Or can you point to any evidence? (Clue: unsubstantiated myth put about by 'training' company spivs isn't evidence.)

vickynleon wrote: »

alot of people are on benefits simply because it wouldnt pay them to work because somepeople would earn less working that they would not working.

Which, even if true (and it certainly is not for people on basic JSA), has nothing to do with mandatory unpaid labour, but is being addressed in other ways such as cappimg welfare payments (rightly or wrongly).

vickynleon wrote: »

there also need to be proper rules set about with this

There isn't. As you seem to say.

exprog

Pete111 wrote: »

Slaves are forced to work under pain of death or punishment and have no say in their own destiny.

Historically ignorant. Various forms of slavery have existed under different legal regimes.

Pete111 wrote: »

It's just that from here on in those who have been out of work and suckling from the tax payers teat for a significant period will be expected to do something in order to continue picking up their benefits.

Won't involve them being offered paid jobs though, will it? So you'll still be able to rant your nonsense.

Pete111 wrote: »

However this country cannot support an ever growing and generationally systemic non-working underclass on an indefinite basis.

Then, if true, those who supported the closing of all the industries that led to such a situation would do better to demand such the mass creation of jobs rather than the three decade old system of running the economy on the basis of mass unemployment.

katerinasol

david1958 wrote: »

same,
some folk think because there is some actual jobs,
unskilled workers can apply for anything,

Sorry to butt in and sorry if I'm suggesting something really obvious but have you tried employment agencies? The ones in my area always seem to be advertising for warehouse/factory staff.

Pete111

exprog wrote: »

Historically ignorant. Various forms of slavery have existed under different legal regimes.

Indeed so but as a generic statement defining 'slavery' I would argue my summary has far more historical and factual accuracy than the reality facing these benefits claimants - I have yet to see any historical example of a 'slave' who had the utter and complete freedom these folks have. (Oh and I have a degree in history BTW - you?)

Won't involve them being offered paid jobs though, will it? So you'll still be able to rant your nonsense.

Did I say it would? What's your point? MY point was that if people want the 'free' money to continue they have to abide by the rules. They don't have to accept the 'free' money of course, then they are free to do whatever. Alternately they could try harder to find a job.

Then, if true, those who supported the closing of all the industries that led to such a situation would do better to demand such the mass creation of jobs rather than the three decade old system of running the economy on the basis of mass unemployment.

Totally agree that job creation schemes are vital. I don't think that we can really blame all of this on the closure of the mines and British leyland et al however. Thats a tad simplistic I feel.

an9i77

A hundred years ago, if you lost your job and couldn't support yourself or your family you'd be off to the workhouse. So I think this is much an improvement on that. To the poster who said the state has a duty to support its citizens do you really think that is how the present government thinks? I think they will make sure people aren't starving in the street, but not much more than that.

I don't see anything wrong with people who are physically and mentally able being required to do 'something' in order to get their benefits. Everyone else has to do something to get, in a lot of cases, just the bare minimum to survive (how many people on min wage jobs have much left for treats at the end of the month). I agree that the 'something' could be better thought out, and as I've said before, perhaps this could be part time eg 20-25 hours per week rather than full time. But there has to be a stick as well as a carrot, and this is it.

strangeotron

david1958 wrote: »

people say there are not jobs out there. Well there are!
your on cloud cookoo land mate,i cant find any of these jobs your talking about.

No, people say there aren't enough jobs out there.

rusty1987 wrote: »

Well I just (briefly) searched for jobs in several places around the uk on http://jobseekers.direct.gov.uk and each search brought up over 250 jobs in each location. If you open your eyes and try to search for a job properly you might have more luck!

and you can verify each of those jobs as being a) a real job and b) enough to live on and c) suitable for every claimant?

an9i77 wrote: »

A hundred years ago, if you lost your job and couldn't support yourself or your family you'd be off to the workhouse. So I think this is much an improvement on that. To the poster who said the state has a duty to support its citizens do you really think that is how the present government thinks? I think they will make sure people aren't starving in the street, but not much more than that.

a hundred years ago we didn't have penicilin, shall we get rid of that too?

rusty1987

strangeotron wrote: »

and you can verify each of those jobs as being a) a real job and b) enough to live on and c) suitable for every claimant?

a) no, as I do not have time to apply for jobs that I have no intention of taking as I currently have 2. Tell you what, why don't you apply for them and let me know.

b) same as above, but since how you told me how tough it is on JSA, you could find yourself better off

c) same as above

Can you do me a favour and verify that each of these jobs are a) not a real job and b) not enough to live on and c) not suitable for every claimant?

If someone really wants to look for a job they will eventually find one. I also realise that 90% (strangeotron I cant confirm this figure, before you ask) of people on JSA do not want to be on benefits and do want to be employed, but if the government brings in a rule that you have to work for your benefit (and I agree it should conform with minimum wage, so if that means 5 hours a week so be it) then you can't really complain because why should JSA claimants get money for nothing? It should also only apply to those on JSA Income related as those on JSA Contributory have paid national insurance contributions.