Work for benefits?

Rochdale_Pioneers

PaulF81 wrote: »

If there werent enough jobs, workfare wouldnt work would it? :beer:

Err, there aren't, and it doesn't.

I think the infamous Iain Duncan Smith visit to Merthyr Tydfil summed up the problem. Merthyr has high unemployment and big problems. IDS suggested that locals could get the bus to Cardiff to get jobs there.

Which is true - they could. Except that the jobless in Cardiff already significantly outstripped the available jobs without people getting the bus down from Merthyr. Which they couldn't for many of the jobs on offer as the available public transport doesn't run late enough. And assuming that there is childcare available and that it can be afforded on the kind of minimum wage jobs being fought over.

Most people out of work want a job. Go back half a decade when we had record levels of employment and the people out of work could be considered a problem. But now, with jobless outstripping vacancies 10 to 1 in many towns, its hardly fair to blame unemployment on the unemployed.

And I have no problem at all with upping sticks for work. I took myself off to London as a graduate to find a job, and have moved around the country several times since then. But its much harder to "up sticks" when you have kids and affordable accommodation is in short supply.

PaulF81

They could relocate to England or even abroad. Having kids is optional. Cant afford them? Have an abortion.

Rochdale_Pioneers

PaulF81 wrote: »

They could relocate to England or even abroad. Having kids is optional. Cant afford them? Have an abortion.

Would love to know how you abort kids. Abortion is something you can do with something before it is born, not after.

PaulF81

They had a choice when they were pregnant. If the state didnt incentivise popping out a million babies to the underclass, we wouldnt have a societal issue with benefits culture. Parents on a lifetime of benefits dont generally generate the next CEO of a major company.

Radsteral

thats the problem with this country...any right decision seem to be overturned in favour of the lazy, hypocrite and selfish ones .


when my wife joined me here in england from her country of birth, knowing how tough it is to get a job, i basically made it clear to her that 1-due to her poor english and 2- due to her zero work experience, she s going to find it way too hard to find a job, any job so the options were either volunteer for a charity shop , or work for free to gain experience
These 2 options she just didn't like at all, but went anyway to work for a charity for 3 weeks and then on a 2 week train in a restaurant within the first week, she was offered a place on that restaurant and she learned the lessons quick.learned how to deal with clients, managers, other workers
what hope these guys who probably never worked have?
i have had 3 guys this year alone coming straight from school or unemployed for 3 years ,trying to join my company
--zero experience,zero ability to deal with my clients zero punctuality
the only 100% they got , is their ability to text write i.e. ''thx u 4 payment c u 2mru''

discoass

PaulF81 wrote: »

Why should it? If I see litter on the street or on the side of the road, I pick it up and bin it. Whilst thinking the individual that littered intentionally should be castrated.

The workfare scheme will provide a moral compass that for generations, their gene pool has not provided.

All I hear from the lefties on here is whining about the "damage to society" that the Conservatives are doing. Look in the mirror. multigenerational benefits claimants and using the welfare state as a means of living (circa 40%+ of the population in some northern towns and cities) has caused the biggest damage to society, whilst bleeding the hardest working in taxes to pay for it. Why was it done? To buy votes off the great unwashed, pure and simple.

You could do with a bit of research ..heres a start
www.fullfacts.org

Graham_Devon

You couldn't make it up.

After all the fuss labour made about the coalitions policies, they come up with their own.

Work, or have your benefits taken away. "No" is not an answer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17394506

The employer would get the wages paid by the taxpayer. The job would last 6 months. If you leave the scheme early, you will not get benefits.

It's worse than the coalitions version. If the employee is terrible, regardless, the business HAS to keep them on for 6 months.

I love the hypocrisy.

Wookster

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I love the hypocrisy.

It really is quite fantastic isn't it.

No party does hypocracy quite like Labour does.

There's Ken with his taxes, Miliband then saying Ken has paid all the taxes he is obliged to but continuing to criticize tax avoidance.

Ed Balls calling for more spending to save the AAA rating then when Fitch warns on additional discretionary spending all of a sudden the ratings agencies are to blame for the crisis.

Then of course this above.

We have our very own version of Comical Ali.

Neverland

Wookster wrote: »

No party does hypocracy quite like Labour does

I call Balls. As an example:

David Cameron (2011) - Council houses should in future be allocated over 5 year terms, not for life. All council house tenants earning over £100k will be evicted. Council hose rents should rise from 35% of market rent to 70% of market rent

David Cameron (2012) - Council houses will be sold to existing tenants at up to 50% off!

Another example, just off the top of my head:

David Cameron (2011) - Rebekah Brooks is my closest confident, the first person I invite to Downing Street after I get in

David Cameron (2012) - I don't know this Rebekah Brooks person well at all, I think she's married to someone I went to school with...

All politicians are hypocrites

IveSeenTheLight

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.

I fully agree that in order to receive benefits (let's consider job seekers allowance) that the recipient must have to do something to get that allowance.

I would suggest 50% of the time is spent in a government office applying for or atending job interviews. the remaining 50% of the time could be spent suplimenting government costs i.e. bin collection, park weeding, cleaning chewing gum / litter off streets etc.

Now I'm not condoning that the suppliment benefit seekers replace exisiting workforce, but that they are additional help i.e. a 4 man bin crew could become 5.

I'm sure there are lots of gealth and safety concenrns to consider, but surely there are many positions that this "additional support" could earn their benefits.

At least it would incentivise people to get proper jobs instead of government supplimented benefit work