We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Welfare to Work
wotsthat
Posts: 11,325 Forumite
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21738852
What's the point of sanctions that aren't carried through?
Welcome to the world of work kid.
At least 60, or 10%, of benefits claimants have refused "mandatory" unpaid work they were told to do under a trial scheme in Derbyshire.
Jobseeker's Allowance can be cut if people refuse to do unpaid work, under regulations introduced in 2011.
Only one person has had their benefit cut.
What's the point of sanctions that aren't carried through?
Gary Parker, from Allenton in Derby, is among those taking part in the trial, called the Derbyshire Mandatory Youth Activity Programme (DMYAP).
The 19-year-old feels the scheme is "kind of slavery".
"I have no choice," he said. "If I don't go I don't get any money."
Welcome to the world of work kid.
0
Comments
-
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
"I have no choice," he said. "If I don't go I don't get any money."
Who should be paying the money for the work done, though?0 -
Who should be paying the money for the work done, though?
I don't mind the safety net being paid for by taxpayers and the incentive for those out of work to do something to earn it.
I'm sure most taxpayers would prefer that to the current / historical method of getting it just for turning up to sign on every two weeks.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
Q Are these jobs necessary ? Or are they just counting lamp-posts with nobody interested in the answer?
Q If the jobs are necessary, why not make up the JSA to the level of the NMW?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Q Are these jobs necessary ? Or are they just counting lamp-posts with nobody interested in the answer?
Q If the jobs are necessary, why not make up the JSA to the level of the NMW?
I sympathise with both sides of this debate..... But I think there is a solution.
-I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people on benefits to contribute some work for the public good in return.
-I also don't think it's right for that contribution to subsidise private business or replace current paid public sector jobs.
However as we all know, there are a myriad of public-good jobs that used to be in place, which are no longer affordable or have been cut back significantly. Litter collecting, public toilet attendants, graffiti removal, nursing home visits, park-keeping, even street sweeping that used to be done regularly is now done once a month.... etc.
Surely there has to be a case for people claiming from the state to contribute somewhere?
And surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to find a way for them to contribute effectively for the good of wider society?
Not saying it should even be full time, but if a job seeker hasn't found work after say 3-6 months, is it unreasonable to then expect them to contribute 10 hours a week, leaving them 30 hours with which to job seek?
Or those families with 8 kids and no employed parents, claiming 20K or 30K a year in benefits.... Why shouldn't the adults have to work 20 hours a week between them, at least doing something for the community that they are taking benefits from?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I sympathise with both sides of this debate..... But I think there is a solution.
-I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people on benefits to contribute some work for the public good in return.
-I also don't think it's right for that contribution to subsidise private business or replace current paid public sector jobs.
However as we all know, there are a myriad of public-good jobs that used to be in place, which are no longer affordable or have been cut back significantly. Litter collecting, public toilet attendants, graffiti removal, nursing home visits, park-keeping, even street sweeping that used to be done regularly is now done once a month.... etc.
Surely there has to be a case for people claiming from the state to contribute somewhere?
And surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to find a way for them to contribute effectively for the good of wider society?
Not saying it should even be full time, but if a job seeker hasn't found work after say 3-6 months, is it unreasonable to then expect them to contribute 10 hours a week, leaving them 30 hours with which to job seek?
Or those families with 8 kids and no employed parents, claiming 20K or 30K a year in benefits.... Why shouldn't the adults have to work 20 hours a week between them, at least doing something for the community that they are taking benefits from?
I broadly agree. My concern is that if you are going to compel people to do work in return for their benefits the rate they are paid should not be set to exploit them. So if they were required to work a number of hours equal to their benefits at NMW rate I see no problem. If we are compelling people to work for £3/hour I feel this is unacceptable unless there is a genuine training aspect.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
My concern is that if you are going to compel people to do work in return for their benefits the rate they are paid should not be set to exploit them. So if they were required to work a number of hours equal to their benefits at NMW rate I see no problem. If we are compelling people to work for £3/hour I feel this is unacceptable unless there is a genuine training aspect.
I'm not quite as precious about the hourly rate as that, but I broadly agree you shouldn't as a rule force someone to work full time for £70 a week JSA.
Apart from anything else it would leave them no time to seek paid employment.
Perhaps a staged system, where the first X months require no work for benefits, then the next X months require 10 hours, then after a year it becomes 20 hours, etc... with an increasing number of hours per week as time goes on?
There has to be some deterrent to long term "benefits through choice" behaviour, and this is as good a deterrent as any.... While at the same time repaying the community, providing work for the public good, and allowing people the latitude to still have enough time to seek paid employment. At least for the first few years....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
For that matter, I'm sure I read somewhere that loosening the rules on domestic working helped radically in some country that tried it as well.
Where a family could hire a handyman/gardener/babysitter or whatnot for a certain number of hours per week, without the red tape or paying any tax so long as they notified the govt, and claimants could work their way back into full time employment with small staged reductions in benefits that always ensured it paid to work.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
I broadly agree. My concern is that if you are going to compel people to do work in return for their benefits the rate they are paid should not be set to exploit them.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I'm not quite as precious about the hourly rate as that, but I broadly agree you shouldn't as a rule force someone to work full time for £70 a week JSA.
Apart from anything else it would leave them no time to seek paid employment.
Perhaps a staged system, where the first X months require no work for benefits, then the next X months require 10 hours, then after a year it becomes 20 hours, etc... with an increasing number of hours per week as time goes on?
There has to be some deterrent to long term "benefits through choice" behaviour, and this is as good a deterrent as any.... While at the same time repaying the community, providing work for the public good, and allowing people the latitude to still have enough time to seek paid employment. At least for the first few years....
I am not too bothered about the hourly rate but whatever "work" they do undertake should not leave them worse off. Reasonable travel expenses and such like should be reimbursed so that net they still receive the "benefit" at least."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I am not too bothered about the hourly rate but whatever "work" they do undertake should not leave them worse off. Reasonable travel expenses and such like should be reimbursed so that net they still receive the "benefit" at least.
Yes, that seems very reasonable.
It's quite bizarre that such a plan hasn't been adopted yet, given how much agreement there is from most people in society, (with such differing views otherwise), as to how good an idea it is.
Doesn't say much for politics and politicians really.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards