Work For The Dole

N1AK

Conrad wrote: »

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,

I've got two relations, by marriage, who fit that description. They've been made redundant from long term 'career' jobs a few times and simply lost the willpower to keep parading themselves to roles well below their capability and getting rejected. They turn up at the job office each fortnight, tell them how they've read the paper and checked monster and go away for another week.

These are people who are capable of doing meaningful, demanding work and the current system has facilitated it.

I don't know for sure if they'd stop claiming or do the work. My guess is they'd almost certainly choose to drop off benefits (leading to more poor households, less savings for retirement etc) over the kind of demeaning work Graham and some others seem to think these "lazy" and "morally lacking" reprobates deserve.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

There are no insults there GD and I have no issue with the fact you don't agree, I will however continue to point out when you are being inconsistent.

Your original response was knee-jerk (do you think claiming that is somehow insulting you) and what I said at the end was predicated on you continuing to do something (again not an insult). If I said, "Graham you'd have to be pretty stupid if you thought 2+2=5" then assuming you don't agree with that statement you'd be perfectly safe.

You're perfectly entitled to be considered for all children. I would however suggest that if that is your concern that is the point you make rather than continuing to discuss your own child who we had already accepted wouldn't be affected.

Graham_Devon

But I probably would think 2+2 =5 ...

As for the discussion over whether I said my own son or all children... if, as you claim, that is backpedaling, then fine. But it really isn't. It's just me explaining to you that I don't think "ok, I'll pay higher fee's to avoid this scheme" it's me saying there should be nobody in a nursery that hasn't actually applied to be there.

Same for schools, healthcare, police, fire etc.

Would you assume your scheme could be extended to the fire service, or police? so long as they are under going training and only, say, arranging the equipment?

As I stated. There is merit in your scheme, but there are placements that simply aren't suitable. IMO, none of the above are suitable, be it my child or someone elses at the end of the line.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But I probably would think 2+2 =5 ...

As for the discussion over whether I said my own son or all children... if, as you claim, that is backpedaling, then fine. But it really isn't. It's just me explaining to you that I don't think "ok, I'll pay higher fee's to avoid this scheme" it's me saying there should be nobody in a nursery that hasn't actually applied to be there.

Same for schools, healthcare, police, fire etc.

Would you assume your scheme could be extended to the fire service, or police? so long as they are under going training and only, say, arranging the equipment?

As I stated. There is merit in your scheme, but there are placements that simply aren't suitable. IMO, none of the above are suitable, be it my child or someone elses at the end of the line.

Yes absolutely. I see no reason at all why they couldn't help the fire brigade in a number of ways:
> Refueling vehicles.
> Copying paper documentation from the scene onto electronic systems for paid personal to check.
> Preparing facilities for tests (prior to adding inflammables one would expect).
> Partaking in training drills (for example acting as shock/burn victims).
> Bringing in a dual-validation system on vehicle equipment (assuming that isn't already done via two proper staff).
> Re-prepping the station during a deployment to shorten the response teams turn around if they are required immediately after another incident.

I also think you could get limited use out of them with some training out at calls. Stowing used equipment, re-directing traffic.

That's only off the top of my head but I'm sure there's plenty more. That said, in practice I doubt fire-fighters would welcome them as they'd see it as a risk to their paid jobs so I doubt it would happen.

We're not talking about a menagerie of mentally deficient malcontents. I'm not expecting them to perform miracles but I am respecting them as human beings which is a pretty reasonable starting point isn't it?

Mallotum_X

One aspect that gets overlooked in these debates is the impact on society of those who get no benefit.

There is a risk that some of those who have been long term out of work and who dont want work may turn to crime to obtain an income. To some benefits almost act like a bribe - stay at home and watch the telly, its better than them going out and nicking mine.

Whilst only a small % of those on benefits would be so inclined, the cost and impact on society as a whole could be a lot more than just giving some of the workshy a few quid to buy fags and watch tv

N1AK

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Whilst only a small % of those on benefits would be so inclined, the cost and impact on society as a whole could be a lot more than just giving some of the workshy a few quid to buy fags and watch tv

We're not talking about a few quid though. We're talking about JSA (nearly £200,000 over a lifetime), housing benefit which will be considerably more and any other benefits they receive. In addition to the considerable investment in their childhood and supporting them through old age.

I personally am not willing to bribe people not to be criminals. I am not persuaded it works in the short term (why not collect benefits and steal as well if so inclined?) and it certainly won't work in the long term.

The police's inability to catch thieves and the government/courts determination not to properly rehabilitate them or alternatively protect us from them is shocking, and should be dealt with though that is another big subject.

Itismehonest

Mallotum_X wrote: »

One aspect that gets overlooked in these debates is the impact on society of those who get no benefit.

There is a risk that some of those who have been long term out of work and who dont want work may turn to crime to obtain an income. To some benefits almost act like a bribe - stay at home and watch the telly, its better than them going out and nicking mine.

Whilst only a small % of those on benefits would be so inclined, the cost and impact on society as a whole could be a lot more than just giving some of the workshy a few quid to buy fags and watch tv

So you think the threat of crime should pay let alone the crime itself?
No, that's almost as silly as paying children to go to school or excluding the ones who don't want to be there anyway :wall:

N1AK

Itismehonest wrote: »

So you think the threat of crime should pay let alone the crime itself?
No, that's almost as silly as paying children to go to school or excluding the ones who don't want to be there anyway :wall:

I disagree with him but his position is reasonable. If it could be proven, somehow, that paying a small amount of money to would-be thieves would save considerably more in reduced crime and have no other negative consequences then the rational thing to do would be swallow our indignation and do it.

I don't believe that is likely to be the case but I appreciate the situation he is proposing is a valid one.

ruggedtoast

A society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. Thank goodness the government is not run by the members of this grisly neo-liberal forum.

The young would have nowhere to live that didnt involve handing over a 5 figure cheque every year to a buy to let landlord. Everyone who didnt have a house would have to work 100 hours a week only to stop being told they were too lazy to have one, at which point they would then be told they were too stupid instead as they cant earn enough.

The unemployed would be forced to work as slaves, but the fatcat, banker, corporate welfare, hpi gravy train would roll on for everyone fortunate enough to be born at the right time or be in the right place.

It is shameful.

Mallotum_X

Itismehonest wrote: »

So you think the threat of crime should pay let alone the crime itself?
No, that's almost as silly as paying children to go to school or excluding the ones who don't want to be there anyway :wall:

I think that is the reality. There will be some who would choose not to take up menial work and lose their benefits. In such a situation some of those would increase in criminal activity - shoplifting and such like.

Whilst i think it would be great if we could force the workshy into paid work, I would expect that rather than force them into work a number would simple turn to/increase criminal activity.

Such a work for benefits idea is only going to work for some. The fact it wont work for everyone is not a reason not to try it. Perhaps it would be better to provide enhanced "benefits" to anyone who would engage with such a scheme rather than remove benefits from those who wont.

The other issue is that some of those "workshy" will have children. If we provide nothing to the parent, then who feeds the child?