Work for benefits?

Wookster

Can someone explain to me why there is a huge uproar over the quasi-requirement to work for benefits?

After 6 months of benefits all claimants of JSA should be obliged to do something, either fort he benefit of the community or otherwise. To me the idea that one can claim benefits indefinitely for doing absolutely nothing is utterly insane.

shortchanged_2

I don't see a problem with people doing public service who are on long term benefits. But I have to admit I don't see why corporate giants etc who already make huge profits should get dirt cheap labour and dress it up as work experience.

Graham_Devon

Wookster wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why there is a huge uproar over the quasi-requirement to work for benefits?

After 6 months of benefits all claimants of JSA should be obliged to do something, either fort he benefit of the community or otherwise. To me the idea that one can claim benefits indefinitely for doing absolutely nothing is utterly insane.

Because it's mostly political.

QT last night were discussing this and most were in agreement that it was a good thing. The only one on the panel who was in disagreement, was, yes, labour.

One women from the audience stated she was working with young people who simply had absolutely no concept of working. It just doesn't exist in their lives. Their parents didnt, they don't. It's an alien world.

She was congratulating this scheme simply for showing these people there was an alternate life out there. These people don't know where to begin or how to begin finding work. They have no concept of being in a place at a certain time. They don't understand that you can't chew gum while at work in a customer facing environment. This scheme (was) showing these people this, and some had gone into employment, she stated.

I say "was" showing them this as labour and some left leaning media have run a brilliant campaign. Instead of attacking the government on it, they have attacked the business offering it, and thus the business has it's name damaged. Tesco, I believe, are about to pull out due to brand damage. Labour are already on to Tesco's new scheme where they offer a job to people on benefits, suggesting it's unlawful, as it excludes people not on benefits.

This is yet another political thing to stop a good scheme. 46% apparently who have taken part have gone on to finding a job. How can that not been seen as a success? We will be failing our own young people if this scheme is axed, and I personally feel there is little choice now as business are pulling out due to damage.

purch

Can someone explain to me why there is a huge uproar over the quasi-requirement to work for benefits?

We have a minimum wage in this country.

If you are working, whether casual, temporary, permanent or on a work trial the least you should expect is minimum wage in return for your labour.

Expecting people to do a Job that under normal circumstances would be paid a proper wage, in return for far lesser amount in benefits is not what I would expect from a decent society.

By all means make it compulsory for benefit claimants to undertake work trials, but at the very least pay them a proper wage whilst they do so.

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

what work do you envisage these people doing?

surely there's an economic cost to creating lots of lets face it, artificial jobs solely in the name of getting unemployed people out of bed in the morning? and if they're not artificial jobs then we go back to the big corporations getting dirt cheap labour argument.

i think its a difficult area to be honest, simply saying you want people to work for their benefits doesn't magically create positions for them to fill.

shortchanged_2

While it very easy to bash people on benefits, we all have to remember there are many legitimate cases of benefit claimants.
However, the UK does also have a hardcore of entrenched benefit claimers who have no want or desire to change their circumstances and it is this group of people that all the efforts are needed to target.

So if this means getting these people to do some form of public service or lose their benefits so be it. However on the flip side obviously with the economy in the state it is jobs aren't exactly two a penny at the moment.

WestonDave

6 months at £67 per week = £1742 - NMW = £6ish - therefore they've been paid for 290 odd hours of work at NMW by the time they start which equates to about 7 weeks work!

Wookster

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The only one on the panel who was in disagreement, was, yes, labour.

What a surprise. Labour really are making themselves more and more irrelevant.

Graham_Devon

Oh and I'd also like to make a little point here to labour and their army of supporters who define this scheme as slavery and everything else.

I started working life on a scheme called "New Deal".

This was a scheme invented by labour whereby the employer got subsidised labour (me) in return for taking part in the scheme. I got a job, and training. Had to do a GNVQ which was a complete waste of time. As part of this deal I had to go to the job centre and see my accessor every month. My employer would also have to assess me. As did the GNVQ. This lastet for a year. So was a years worth of "free" labour. I got token payments as I was also classed as in training.

Without this, the employer probably wouldn't have taken me on. They did find me work to fill my time, it's got to be said. However, from that I am where I am today.

It would, therefore, be the height of hypocrisy for labour to have a go at free labour for companies....would it not?

nomoneytoday

It costs money for the business, in terms of training, other staff mentoring etc.
Also, I doubt that all of the people doing the work experience will be contributing the same as a FT member of staff.
The 46% that do contribute end up gainfully employed.

Wookster

shortchanged wrote: »

While it very easy to bash people on benefits, we all have to remember there are many legitimate cases of benefit claimants.

This is true, however it is not good for people to be unemployed for extended periods of time. After 6 months, people should be required to do something, as much as for the sake of their health as anything else.