Labour's "Job Guarantee"

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Certainly create a lot of supervision jobs making sure they are where they are meant to be at any given time, that they were safe to be doing the jobs, providing transport, equipment etc.

So? Unless you're suggesting it's better to just keep giving them the JSA each week instead that's a pretty vacuous point.

If you take the pot-hole example. A typical work crew is 2-3 people (inc marking, prep and fill). Stick a 4th (JSA claimer) on the crew for on the job training and assistance after they attend a workplace safety course. It's not rocket science.

Many libraries have cut back hours and open days. Using JSA 'staff' to extend the hours back out doesn't mean spending £1000s on training and 'equipment'.

Besides which the JSA saved by:

• The people who refuse jobs, drop off benefits to avoid them
• The people who can get jobs (but hadn't bothered)
• The people who get jobs due to the recent work experience, references and training

Would likely be considerable.

antrobus

tomterm8 wrote: »

Antrobus, I don't think the conservative party policy is fair or effective: it is not fair because they ask people to work full time for wages equivalent to 12 hours a week at minimum wage; it is not effective because people who go on these programs simply are not more likely to get permanent jobs than those who do not. Or at least that is what the governments own figures suggest.

Doesn't that undermine the whole idea of a government backed 'jobs guarantee'?