Work For The Dole

MacMickster

Once again, the idea of forcing jobseekers to work in exchange for their benefits has been mooted - this time in a report by the Taxpayers' Alliance.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/workforthedole.pdf

Is it not now time to look at this from a different perspective?

My view is that we should scrap Jobseeker's Allowance completely. Instead we should guarantee every adult in the UK who wants it, 12 hours work per week in the public sector paid at the national minimum wage.

This would give every genuine jobseeker an income equivalent to JSA, whilst leaving the majority of their week free to search for a better or additional job. The taxpayer, however, would receive some value (in terms of the work done) in exchange for their contribution.

We have probably all experienced poor service from the public sector which is attributed to lack of manpower. I had the misfortune of having to contact HMRC just before the Self-Assessment deadline this year. Imagine no-one who wanted a job being completely unemployed, and the public sector having a pool of a million part-time floating workers able to be directed to deal with peaks of work throughout central and local government departments.

N1AK

MacMickster wrote: »

Is it not now time to look at this from a different perspective?

My view is that we should scrap Jobseeker's Allowance completely. Instead we should guarantee every adult in the UK who wants it, 12 hours work per week in the public sector paid at the national minimum wage.

I think something along these lines is exactly what we should be considering. Personally I think there should be a 'grace' period first, purely to limit the churn on people joining the scheme and leaving soon after; but probably no more than a year.

I'd also consider spreading the policy to include housing benefit payments as well.

Loughton_Monkey

MacMickster wrote: »

My view is that we should scrap Jobseeker's Allowance completely. Instead we should guarantee every adult in the UK who wants it, 12 hours work per week in the public sector paid at the national minimum wage.

This is somewhat like the Chinese system. They have never had anything other than the most basic 'subsistence' safety net. But generally speaking, most people can get work if they want it - doing something for the government.

This is why you can drive along modern, clean, motorways, and see hoards of high-viz workers cutting the pristine hedges with... er... hand clippers. It's as if China hasn't invented the motorised hedge clipper. I used to look out of my Shanghai office onto a large park below. Again, there was often a gang of 50 or so people cutting the grass with small shears. Never a lawnmower in sight.

MacMickster wrote: »

Imagine no-one who wanted a job being completely unemployed, and the public sector having a pool of a million part-time floating workers able to be directed to deal with peaks of work throughout central and local government departments.

I'm not sure I'd welcome phoning up, say, DWP to ask about how to defer my state pension, and having to talk to some spotty 'yoof' with a grade E in metalwork and nothing else, disgruntled about 'boomers' or society in general who is clearly to blame for his plight....

Having said that, I have advocated, for a long time, that unemployment benefit should be claimable only by 'signing on' every single work day and signing off as well. In other words, the person would still have to get up early in the morning, travel (not very far), and thus prevent him lazing around in bed, moonlighting, or whatever. I don't think it would be long before s/he realised that work was not such a bad thing in comparison...

ruggedtoast

MacMickster wrote: »

Once again, the idea of forcing jobseekers to work in exchange for their benefits has been mooted - this time in a report by the Taxpayers' Alliance.

Things like this seem like a fantastic idea until you or someone you care about loses their job and on top of the stress and anxiety of that is forced to work in some drudge position that is stopping them applying for more work, and is doing nothing to improve their CVs.

JSA only lasts for 6 months and is discretionary depending on NI payments. If you want the unemployed to work in the public sector then create public sector jobs.

Furthermore I cant imagine what kind of 'jobs; you think would be suitable. Putting resentful people who feel that they are being used as slaves in charge of the nations tax system is one of the silliest things I have heard on here, and I read most of White Horse's posts.

Graham_Devon

I have long advocated jobseekers who are out of work for 12-18m doing something.

However, that something has to be carefully thought about, as these people are unlikely to want to actually do it, so the job cannot be something which anyone has to rely on these people for.

So, one solution would be street cleaning, litter picking, hell, they could wash taxi's for all I care, so long as people are not doing a job badly because they cannot be bothered that it has knock on effects to the public. Basically any job that is not done already that will benefit public at large.

MacMickster

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Furthermore I cant imagine what kind of 'jobs; you think would be suitable. Putting resentful people who feel that they are being used as slaves in charge of the nations tax system is one of the silliest things I have heard on here, and I read most of White Horse's posts.

Well I'm quite sure that HMRC has quite a number of permanent staff doing fairly menial unskilled jobs (for example in post rooms throughout the country). Train these permanent staff to step in and deal with more complex work at peak times, whilst their own jobs are covered staff from this pool of floating workers.

Also, why do you consider that some people (surely not all) should be exempted from having to do work that you consider to be drudge jobs?

N1AK

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Things like this seem like a fantastic idea until you or someone you care about loses their job and on top of the stress and anxiety of that is forced to work in some drudge position that is stopping them applying for more work, and is doing nothing to improve their CVs.

We're talking about 12 hours a week, that isn't stopping anyone from applying for jobs; most people are talking about it starting some time after being made unemployed as well that further diminishes this concern.

When I was made redundant a few years ago I claimed JSA for the 3 months. If I could only have claimed it if I did 12 hours work then I would either:
a) Not bothered if the work did nothing for my employability and used more savings (for example if it was make work employment).
b) Probably got temp work paying better than NMW doing something like call centre, data entry or whatever.
c) Taken the 12 hours work if it was something non-pointless to show I was keen to work.

ruggedtoast

MacMickster wrote: »

Well I'm quite sure that HMRC has quite a number of permanent staff doing fairly menial unskilled jobs (for example in post rooms throughout the country). Train these permanent staff to step in and deal with more complex work at peak times, whilst their own jobs are covered staff from this pool of floating workers.

Also, why do you consider that some people (surely not all) should be exempted from having to do work that you consider to be drudge jobs?

Because Job Seekers Allowance is a contributory non means tested benefit designed to fund the newly unemployed for up to 6 months while they try and find a new job.

I am not sure why you are picking this out as opposed to income support which pays out forever.

Actually I agree, your idea is fantastic, a work of genius. In fact I nominate you to be the person who gets to manage and run the whole process of 'train[ing] these permanent staff to step in and deal with more complex work at peak times, whilst their own jobs are covered staff from this pool of floating workers.'

Sounds like a tall order to me, trying to mix and match people within a giant organisation to act up to jobs they have no aptitude for depending on the number of resentful slaves who happen to have showed up that day. Hope you dont muck it up and end up unemployed because you know where you'll end up.

wotsthat

This idea wouldn't be that difficult to administer. Minimum wage jobs are effectively working for benefits and so working for non-working benefits is just a scheme extension.

Clearly there should be a period of grace as the targets are the long term unemployed rather than those who find themselves temporarily without a job.

Also people on any scheme proposed should end up with more money than not working. There are many benefits to work but the main one is that it's financially better to work than not - this small carrot might just be enough to give the long term unemployed their eureka moment.

The carrot could be funded by squeezing those who choose not to engage.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, that something has to be carefully thought about, as these people are unlikely to want to actually do it, so the job cannot be something which anyone has to rely on these people for.

Actually this is exactly what I'm keen to avoid. If we're 'employing' people then we should expect them to behave like employees rather than giving them make work. If they are turning up late, not working, doing a poor job then they should be kicked off the scheme for a period or eventually moved into the 'problem' teams who are giving less enjoyable and less critical work.

If the work is pointless make work with low expected standards then it will fail to:
a) Stop people claiming who don't want to work and don't need to claim.
b) Give people some employment history that will actually make them attractive to proper employees.

Hell one of the first places I'd consider employing some of them would be in child-care (properly CRB checked and getting gradual training). Affordable child care is a real problem in this country and even if teams were still 2/3rds trained experienced professionals then adding a couple of assistants in would help.

Bring some data entry back in house, set up some new on-shore call centres etc. Treat them with respect like you would any employee and expect them to work accordingly.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Things like this seem like a fantastic idea until you or someone you care about loses their job and on top of the stress and anxiety of that is forced to work in some drudge position that is stopping them applying for more work, and is doing nothing to improve their CVs.

who do you think ought to work in 'some drudge position'?