Work for benefits

Sampong

In the media headlines this morning;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2434182/Now-work-benefits-Ministers-unveil-tough-crackdown-payments-jobless.html

At first sight seems like a great idea. The whole "benefits culture" thing annoys me (as it does a lot of people).

But -

Where exactly are they all going to work?

Surely this would be wide open to abuse - unscrupulous employers will use it a method to obtain cheap labor, driving down wages elsewhere in whatever industry they are in, and making it difficult for businesses who actually have some ETHICS and social responsibility to compete.

Can't see this ever happening, but surely a recipe for disaster if it did?

Carl31

Wouldnt local councils use these people on projects?

Thats what I would expect, litter clearing, painting fences, public service type things. As they are being paid out of tax payer money, they should benefit the tax payer

Edit - Just read the article, im not sure I agree with working full time for benefits. The amount received should be related to hourly minimum wage imo, eg if they are on job seekers at £70 a week, then they work around 11 hours

dryhat

The main beneficiaries of welfare, by a mile, are bankers.

We should insist on them carrying out some community work rather than bleeding us dry.

Loughton_Monkey

Surely this is being thrashed to death here?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4758203

Sampong

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Surely this is being thrashed to death here?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4758203

It surely looks like it.

Didn't see that thread.

Surely you don't expect me to hold any remorse though

daveyjp

Carl31 wrote: »

Wouldnt local councils use these people on projects?

Thats what I would expect, litter clearing, painting fences, public service type things. As they are being paid out of tax payer money, they should benefit the tax payer

Edit - Just read the article, im not sure I agree with working full time for benefits. The amount received should be related to hourly minimum wage imo, eg if they are on job seekers at £70 a week, then they work around 11 hours

Who will manage all these people? Who will pay for the equipment training? In case you haven't noticed Councils have lost thousands of staff over the last three years and thousands more to go over the next 3 so they don't have capacity to suddenly take on and manage thousands of extra staff.

Carl31

daveyjp wrote: »

Who will manage all these people? Who will pay for the equipment training? In case you haven't noticed Councils have lost thousands of staff over the last three years and thousands more to go over the next 3 so they don't have capacity to suddenly take on and manage thousands of extra staff.

Surely the councils will have budgets allocated to projects in the community? The staff will not be paid (well out of the budget), therefore its only management cost to be taken out.

I am sure that there are many budgets or requirements on councils agenda that they do not have the resource for, this at least provides a labour resource.

Loughton_Monkey

This will doubtless be a headline popularist topic at the Conservative conference. But if the objective is to save money and ramp down the 'benefits culture' then it has some problems:

1. When you look at the UK welfare bill, you find, predictably, that almost half of it is State Pension. After that, the next biggest cost is housing benefit, followed by DLA and then Pension Credit. Jobseeker's Allowance is "only" in the order of 3% of the total welfare cost.
2. In trying to organise some form of 'workfare' - taking into account our country's propensity not to know how to organise 'parties' in breweries - the cost of organising such work schemes could well exceed the amount saved by a considerable margin.
3. All the socialist lobbyists and commentators will constantly equate the whole thing to 'slave labour' and accuse the government of taking jobseekers physically away from any prospect of searching for a 'real' job. All exaggerated hot air of course, but it might rebound. Trade Unions are not going to accept it either.

It would be a brave government to fiddle too much with State Pension, leaving only 50% of the welfare bill as potentially 'reducable'.

To be fair, the government is trying to tackle some of the abuse. It has for some time been trying to weed out the many false 'disability' cases. This is politically difficult. It is trying to reduce the Housing Benefit bill with the 'bedroom tax', and look how unpopular that is. It introduced the cap on benefits per household - but that doesn't save much.

But personally, I think the best (and cheapest) start would be to make everyone who can walk, claiming jobseekers or whatever you move onto (income support?) actually turn up somewhere every day. Once before 9 a.m., and again after 4:30 p.m. Some form of cheap fingerprint & camera technology could be installed outside job centres.

For the real skivers, they would soon realise that once they have to get out of bed every morning and travel, then they might as well do a bit of work in between and earn some real money.

I'm at a loss to know what to do with the 'single parent' mob who realise that having a baby (or two) at a young age gives them a house and income beyond their wildest dreams without having ever to work.

wotsthat

Having a day off today I sauntered past the local 'affordable' housing where a chap in his pyjamas was sending his Siberian Husky for a crap on the shared green area. His young son left the house for school and presumably our 'go getting' parent went back to his subsidised bed.

I despise people like this and I despise the benefits system that has taken self-responsibility from them.

I don't really like turning into a right wing Tory but it's so jading watching with exasperation a system that is p**s poor at identifying those in need and those who just want 'the man' to look after them.

Carl31

wotsthat wrote: »

Having a day off today I sauntered past the local 'affordable' housing where a chap in his pyjamas was sending his Siberian Husky for a crap on the shared green area. His young son left the house for school and presumably our 'go getting' parent went back to his subsidised bed.

I despise people like this and I despise the benefits system that has taken self-responsibility from them.

I don't really like turning into a right wing Tory but it's so jading watching with exasperation a system that is p**s poor at identifying those in need and those who just want 'the man' to look after them.

Theres 2 families down my road in the social housing 'end' that have come over from africa. My kids play with the children sometimes

Apart from the not working bit, thats 5 adults across the 2 houses, they often have ambulances at their house. Recently i inquired why. Apparently they see it fit to call 999 for pretty much any ailment, including a bad bad ache, when their son lost his voice, and a very bad headache

I might inform the daily mail

krok

Carl31 wrote: »

Theres 2 families down my road in the social housing 'end' that have come over from africa. My kids play with the children sometimes

Apart from the not working bit, thats 5 adults across the 2 houses, they often have ambulances at their house. Recently i inquired why. Apparently they see it fit to call 999 for pretty much any ailment, including a bad bad ache, when their son lost his voice, and a very bad headache

I might inform the daily mail

Are you a racist?

Why mention that they are from Africa?