Work For The Dole

ruggedtoast

N1AK wrote: »

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.

You are assuming that the public sector is some kind of enormous pointless job shop where people can show up with no recruitment process, do something for a random number of hours per week and then vanish when they no longer want to attend. I have never worked in any organisation that could support this silly idea.

It would be a nightmare for a normal business to implement, and by the nature of most public sector work completely impossible in terms of security, data protection and protection of end users.

The only way it could conceivably work is with people doing basic manual labour under supervision.

If you are just keen on the idea of punishing the entire unemployed by making them do pointless demeaning tasks that perform no useful benefit and serve only to make them hate society then this would be a great way to start.

I assume the Royal Family, the biggest example of time wasting over patronised pointless f r e e l o a d e r s that England has yet produced will be made to do their 12 hours a week as well?

N1AK

wotsthat wrote:

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.

I think the basic hours should match the pay they would have been receiving from JSA before they had to work for it. However I would be for allowing them to 'choose' to work an additional 2-4 hours to increase that and perhaps in favour of having anyone who performs well in the role (perhaps as much as 75% of those on the scheme) get a small performance related pay premium (NMW+3%-5%) as reward.

That way someone who had been claiming JSA alone £71.70 would get paid £72.57 for 11.5 hours work. It would be £74.74 after a few weeks if they engage in the scheme (+3%) and £97.49 if they chose to work 15 hours (Nearly 25% more).

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

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.

What it will do though is give the person doing the work the incentive to stop doing this menial work and go and get a better job paying better rates.

The idea being that if you have to do something, you might aswell do something better.

Suggesting these people should care for children is, IMO, frankly madness. You have to be a certain person to do those sort of things. I'd move my son quick sharp out of any nursery pulling people in from god knows anywhere to care for my child because they simply have no choice.

I have to be frank here, but you appear to be treating the public sector and (in that example) nursery workers as if they are nothing and anyone can do their job. They may not get paid a lot, but they are not nothing, far from it.

John1993_2

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.

Er, who's suggesting giving them jobs anywhere near the tax system?

I agree with your general point, though. Long-term unemployed are often long-term unemployed for a reason. It's a rare job that'd be done well by sommeone who doesn't want to be there, and who's often already demonstrated a poor abillity to defer future gain for present pain (so who'll ignore the sanctions, and simply refuse to work).

Much as it grates to pay people to sit at home watching television, it might be the best option for society sometimes.

ankspon

What happened to the minimum wage for working

N1AK

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You are assuming that the public sector is some kind of enormous pointless job shop where people can show up with no recruitment process, do something for a random number of hours per week and then vanish when they no longer want to attend. I have never worked in any organisation that could support this silly idea.

No I'm not, but I know your debating style is to try and construct gigantic straw-men then clumsily attack them so it doesn't shock me that you should suggest that.

There are jobs that are not done, or that are not done to a standard that we would elect for them to be if funding existed to support it. If you honestly think that leaving people to rot on JSA for years is somehow doing them a favour then you are sadly mistaken.

What I find particularly ironic about your rant is that you claim to be defending the unemployed from demeaning work and do so by claiming they can't usefully be used to do anything; it is in fact you that are demeaning the unemployed.

wotsthat

N1AK wrote: »

I think the basic hours should match the pay they would have been receiving from JSA before they had to work for it. However I would be for allowing them to 'choose' to work an additional 2-4 hours to increase that and perhaps in favour of having anyone who performs well in the role (perhaps as much as 75% of those on the scheme) get a small performance related pay premium (NMW+3%-5%) as reward.

That way someone who had been claiming JSA alone £71.70 would get paid £72.57 for 11.5 hours work. It would be £74.74 after a few weeks if they engage in the scheme (+3%) and £97.49 if they chose to work 15 hours (Nearly 25% more).

Something like that might work.

This sort of idea pops up from time to time. The biggest issue tends to be that the consequences of opting out are non-existent.

I started this thread awhile ago..

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4493213

based on this news (local to me) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21738852

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.
...........
About 600 unemployed people were allocated placements in the first two and a half months of the trial, from 12 November to 31 January.

About 60 people declined to do the placements and were referred to a "decision maker", who can decide whether to cut their Jobseeker's Allowance.

Only one person has had their benefit cut.

Itismehonest

John1993 wrote: »

Er, who's suggesting giving them jobs anywhere near the tax system?

I agree with your general point, though. Long-term unemployed are often long-term unemployed for a reason. It's a rare job that'd be done well by sommeone who doesn't want to be there, and who's often already demonstrated a poor abillity to defer future gain for present pain (so who'll ignore the sanctions, and simply refuse to work).

Much as it grates to pay people to sit at home watching television, it might be the best option for society sometimes.

Yet the only reason some people are able to "sit at home watching television" is because they are being paid to do so by the State.
I'm sure there are several jobs that local councils could find for people to do in their areas.

Personally, it wouldn't bother me to do something menial in order to qualify for any money. As has been said, those that really want to work will find another job (possibly just to get out of doing the allotted one) while those that have no intention of working would refuse or cop out & so lose their benefit.

Most work-type benefits are meant to be for those who need them temporarily while actively searching for work. They aren't designed to be a lifestyle choice.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What it will do though is give the person doing the work the incentive to stop doing this menial work and go and get a better job paying better rates.

The idea being that if you have to do something, you might aswell do something better.

Suggesting these people should care for children is, IMO, frankly madness. You have to be a certain person to do those sort of things. I'd move my son quick sharp out of any nursery pulling people in from god knows anywhere to care for my child because they simply have no choice.

I have to be frank here, but you appear to be treating the public sector and (in that example) nursery workers as if they are nothing and anyone can do their job. They may not get paid a lot, but they are not nothing, far from it.

Then pull your son as you can apparently afford to pay the fees. It doesn't surprise me that that is your response because you've always been one for knee-jerk reactions over rational evidence.

There are plenty of people who are long term unemployed who are intelligent, capable etc who are on those benefits due to laziness, lack of morale or whatever.

As you'd notice if you finished reading what I said before seeing red and losing any rationality you'd notice that in that specific example I said supporting experienced professionals. There is a considerable amount of work in child-care not related to child-care:
> Producing food & drinks
> Setting up for activities
> Cleaning up after activities
> Dealing with phone contact
> Managing stocks, ordering products etc

It is common for places like nurseries to do work experience or vocational training placements. None of the above somehow demeans nursery workers it is simply a recognition of the fact that not everything that happens there requires extensive child-care training; using untrained staff to free up the experienced staff for the work that requires them would make the place more efficient (able to handle more children with the same care for a lower per child price).

N1AK

John1993 wrote:

Much as it grates to pay people to sit at home watching television, it might be the best option for society sometimes.

In the short term perhaps but in the long term that kind of lifestyle needs to be discouraged if we are to be productive. We should not be in the habit of supporting people through a life of comfortable voluntary idleness.

How many people die in a country that doesn't have job seekers allowances because they chose not to work? It doesn't happen (though they die for plenty of other reasons) so why should we act as though expecting people to work in return for pay is somehow wrong over here.