Work For The Dole

John1993_2

N1AK wrote: »

why should we act as though expecting people to work in return for pay is somehow wrong over here.

We shouldn't, but we should be pragmatic, and it should be trialled first, and evidence collected about outcomes.

If the net result is no litter being collected, supervisors standing tere all day with no staff arriving, and an incease in property theft in the trial areas, then we'd need to look again at whether it makes sense to do.

Edited to add, it's a little like concription, or national service. Many in the army are against it, as it provides them with the wrong sort of people.

Prothet_of_Doom

I think that if you have been 'looking' for work for 6 months, then 10 hours community service, arranged via charities and churches and the like, with clear deliverables each week, attendence plus a level of targets achieved, plus 10 hours of supervised job search.

At 12 months, this should go up to 20:20. That is 20 hours community work and 20 hours supervised job search.

At 18 months, you should have the 40 hours replaced with training.

At anytime it should be possible to reduce the 10 or 20 hours community work to 5 hours, if it is replaced with training of 10 or more hours.

I know people who have never worked and just languish

John1993_2

Itismehonest wrote: »

Personally, it wouldn't bother me to do something menial in order to qualify for any money.

It'd not bother me either, which is why we aren't likely to ever end up long-term unemployed ourselves.

Carl31

Great idea imo, there will always be exceptions, but i would imagine for many they will happily accept the opportunity. They get on job work experience, motivation, and potential to move on. Maybe even NVQs can be thrown in for good measure for those that want to gain them

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

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

If they are lazy and lack morale, then I don't want them doing any of that when it's my child who loses out should they not do any of it and the people who are supposed to be caring for the kids then has to step in and do it.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you, regardless of if you have written off my disagreement as a "knee jerk reaction". I don't believe it is a knee jerk reaction. I just don't think people who cannot be bothered to get a job and would prefer to sit on benefits should be anywhere near child development or care.

If they cannot be bothered, they can do a made up job that will benefit us all. Pick litter from the banks on the M6 (it needs it and it seems it's not done - or not done frequently enough).

If they don't like that, they are free to apply for other jobs.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I just don't think people who cannot be bothered to get a job and would prefer to sit on benefits should be anywhere near child development or care.

Totally agree.
And I would include general healthcare and care for the elderly also in that.
And that includes 'backoffice' tasks like stock management or producing food and drinks.
I don't want some dopey spotty millenial dealing with food and drink for those near and dear to me.

N1AK

John1993 wrote: »

We shouldn't, but we should be pragmatic, and it should be trialled first, and evidence collected about outcomes.

If the net result is no litter being collected, supervisors standing tere all day with no staff arriving, and an incease in property theft in the trial areas, then we'd need to look again at whether it makes sense to do.

Now that I certainly agree with. I have no issue with trialling before a wider roll-out. What I say though is that I don't think we should settle for paying people to be idle because they'll turn to crime otherwise. If someone is offered the chance to work, rejects it and chooses crime instead then (after due process, 2nd chances etc) they should be moved to a secure location and forced to work prior to release.

Rewarding destructive behaviour may be easy in the short term but just leads to more of it in the future.

Conrad

Why not introduce compunction to work after a grace period, say 3 months?

I've seen too many good people slowly fall into long term welfare dependency - there's nothing progressive about it, and the outcomes for children in long term workless households are appalling, something lost on the Owen Jones' of this world.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If they are lazy and lack morale, then I don't want them doing any of that when it's my child who loses out should they not do any of it and the people who are supposed to be caring for the kids then has to step in and do it.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you, regardless of if you have written off my disagreement as a "knee jerk reaction". I don't believe it is a knee jerk reaction.

Given that you've already shoved into reverse and started qualifying your earlier statements clearly you don't agree with what was a knee jerk reaction earlier.

Unless you're saying that everyone who would be covered by this scheme is lazy and lacking morales? In which case you're just as bad as the people you rail against on here for claiming that only the lazy and work-shy can't afford a decent place to live.

I'm not sure if the fact that I've managed to get you and Pricklepuppet to agree on something is a sign I'm right or wrong though

I'm really not sure how often I'm going to have to point out that you probably wouldn't need to send your kids to somewhere doing this because you can, apparently, afford the current costs before I accept the possibility that you are incapable of concentrating for long enough to read an entire post.

Graham_Devon

Blimey NIAK, calm down with the insults. I've read your posts. I cannot agree. It's as simple as that.

I don't just care about my son, I don't want people who cannot be bothered to work (and therefore are sent on this scheme) near anyone's kids. Or indeed, like Pricklepants stated, in the healthcare sector either.

Theres a job and a place for them, but these services just aren't it.