Do I have to do work experience?

sniggings

berbastrike wrote: »

The person that did do the charity shop work would prove that theyre capable of working hard... if someone hadn't then I wouldn't take any offence because working for nothing for 8 weeks is a disgraceful scheme by the government. The main thing I would look for is decent school grades

if they are forced to go on it or have benefits cut, how does that prove they are a hard worker? if you are saying that the fact they managed to get through the process without getting sanctioned so must have worked hard, I would not give any credit to someone for that.

yeah the decent school grades is a good start, it's something we have seemed to have forgotten about, they don't show the full picture but they are a dam good start.

sniggings

ViolaLass wrote: »

In any case, the OP has talked about walking to the next town, so they are not in a city and rent shouldn't be so much of an issue, thus freeing up money.

It's all very well to say 'this shouldn't happen' but it is and I want to give the OP a practical solution.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, the OP gets housing benefit that is at an amount set for their area, they have to put something to it, which many people do, even if they didn't £71 is not enough to be paying £20 in bus fare for a charity job. telling the OP to move to a cheaper place is not going to help the situation is it, might in the long run after they pay for the traving costs, deposits etc, so maybe in 2 years time they will be better off, but that's not going to help them now.

System

sniggings wrote: »

if they are forced to go on it or have benefits cut, how does that prove they are a hard worker? if you are saying that the fact they managed to get through the process without getting sanctioned so must have worked hard, I would not give any credit to someone for that.

yeah the decent school grades is a good start, it's something we have seemed to have forgotten about, they don't show the full picture but they are a dam good start.

I know what you mean, its basically do full time work for 1/4 of the minimum wage...modern slavery!

ViolaLass

sniggings wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are talking about, the OP gets housing benefit that is at an amount set for their area,

The OP said she couldn't get a bedsit for less than £500 a month. I find this surprising, that's all. A room should cost less than that - I could manage £400 a month even in Central London!

sniggings

ViolaLass wrote: »

The OP said she couldn't get a bedsit for less than £500 a month. I find this surprising, that's all. A room should cost less than that - I could manage £400 a month even in Central London!

maybe but it's hardly the point and is not really relivant to the question...could the OP live cheaper, probably yes but as said even if they had no extra to put to the reant, £20 is just still to much to expect someone on £71 a week to find.

I was struggling to find £3.50 for the bus to interviews once in a while, finding £20 a week for me would have been impossible.

The only question should be, why are these places allowed to have free labour and not even be made to pay for travel costs, it's not much to ask is it,. if they were hiring someone it would be costing them over £240 a week for min wage, £20 bus fare seems a bargain.

BillJones

berbastrike wrote: »

I know what you mean, its basically do full time work for 1/4 of the minimum wage...modern slavery!

If this is what people today think is slavery, then I despair.

The OP is not obliged to do any of this stuff, if they work out for themselves how to get into paid employment. If they want the state to give them money while they look, then there are all sorts of conditions attached. This really is not unreasonable.

sniggings

BillJones wrote: »

If this is what people today think is slavery, then I despair.

The OP is not obliged to do any of this stuff, if they work out for themselves how to get into paid employment. If they want the state to give them money while they look, then there are all sorts of conditions attached. This really is not unreasonable.

we all know the word slavery is being used in a relative way here...well most of us do.

If the goverment come out and say the unemployed have to work for their benefits, then we can vote for that or not, discuss it etc but no, what they are doing is using this free labour to punish those on benefits and at the same time it is lowing wages and actually supporting these places in NOT taking on staff, similar to apprenticeships, using cheap labour, to keep wages down.

Being on the work programe has been shown to lessen your chances of finding work, not increase them, for the billions the tax payer are paying, I'm amazed more are not demanding better value for money.

amiehall

sniggings wrote: »

Being on the work programe has been shown to lessen your chances of finding work, not increase them, for the billions the tax payer are paying, I'm amazed more are not demanding better value for money.

I would love to read this study. Surely this is hard to judge as is the WP reserved for the longer-term unemployed?

sniggings

amiehall wrote: »

I would love to read this study. Surely this is hard to judge as is the WP reserved for the longer-term unemployed?

how is it hard to judge?

read this, very interesting. http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-work-programme-is-getting-worse-latest-figures-reveal/

Denning.

You can't and we shouldn't be trying to get everyone into jobs. It costs too much and it is wholly inefficient. Offer educational courses in the basics free of charge. Perhaps have interview practice. Apart from that leave jobseekers to it.

That's from the 'educational' side. I'm not advocating for allowing jobseekers to just sign on once a fortnight forever. Compulsory community work in proportion to their benefits.