Jobless to work 'clearing litter' !!!

Things change I've changed · 21 Jul 2008 at 05:22

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7516551.stm

"Benefit claimants could be forced to pick up litter and clean graffiti under plans to be unveiled by ministers."

"This shake-up will apply to all 4.5m people on out-of-work benefits, but is expected to impact most on those on Jobseekers Allowance"

"Under plans laid out in the Green Paper, claimants will have to carry out four weeks' community work once they have been unemployed for more than a year."

"After two years, they will be ordered to work full-time."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like good news but what if the people that are forced into doing this work just treat it as a joke (which know doubt they will) and choose not to work properly ?, I hope if they refuse to work or work poorly then their benefits are terminated, I really feel that this does have the potential to be a very good scheme, these people could end up being a valuable untapped resource if implemented correctly, thousands of people put to work in their local community's for the price of their weekly benefit, I'm probably being a bit idealistic but if this scheme reaps rewards it could lead to other new ideas on how to make use of the long term jobless and maybe even prisoners come to think of it, I've always thought it such a waste having people sat in their cells 95% of the time when they could be put to work building etc.

McManicMan · 21 Jul 2008 at 05:28

meanwhile all the people who actually get paid for litter and graffiti cleaning will go out of business

"After two years, they will be ordered to work full-time.", so how will that work?, how can they order someone to work except by possible removing benifits totally.

BTW i'm employed, lol

Monkeynut · 21 Jul 2008 at 05:30

It's a great IDEA, It's more whether it;s applied and enforced properly.

Things change I've changed · 21 Jul 2008 at 05:45

McManicMan said:
meanwhile all the people who actually get paid for litter and graffiti cleaning will go out of business

lol I did think of that actually and obviously that's something hopefully that they've taken into consideration, but then knowing our current government......

"After two years, they will be ordered to work full-time.", so how will that work?, how can they order someone to work except by possible removing benefits totally."

Seems like a good idea to me.

arknor · 21 Jul 2008 at 05:54

cant the city councils just find proper jobs for long time unemployed people instead of using it as an excuse to get slave labour? binmen , street sweepers etc
if someone refuses a garunteed job cut there benefits completely and starve them into work instead of just stoping the benefits for a few weeks.

Killa_ken · 21 Jul 2008 at 06:39

I say scrap benefits all together.

McManicMan · 21 Jul 2008 at 06:47

Killa_ken said:
I say scrap benefits all together.

thing is there is actual people that do need them, its telling them apart from the chav scum thats the problem

Aughoti · 21 Jul 2008 at 06:59

lowrider007 said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7516551.stm

"Benefit claimants could be forced to pick up litter and clean graffiti under plans to be unveiled by ministers."

"This shake-up will apply to all 4.5m people on out-of-work benefits, but is expected to impact most on those on Jobseekers Allowance"

"Under plans laid out in the Green Paper, claimants will have to carry out four weeks' community work once they have been unemployed for more than a year."

"After two years, they will be ordered to work full-time."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like good news but what if the people that are forced into doing this work just treat it as a joke (which know doubt they will) and choose not to work properly ?, I hope if they refuse to work or work poorly then their benefits are terminated, I really feel that this does have the potential to be a very good scheme, these people could end up being a valuable untapped resource if implemented correctly, thousands of people put to work in their local community's for the price of their weekly benefit, I'm probably being a bit idealistic but if this scheme reaps rewards it could lead to other new ideas on how to make use of the long term jobless and maybe even prisoners come to think of it, I've always thought it such a waste having people sat in their cells 95% of the time when they could be put to work building etc.

I agree, especially prisoners, we could take in items which need to be dismantled to be recycled, cars, computers, fridges etc. get them to take them to pieces. save the environment and maybe teach them some skills

fozter · 21 Jul 2008 at 07:01

Killa_ken said:
I say scrap benefits all together.

Not everyone is as fully capable to work as you.

Ceryndrion · 21 Jul 2008 at 07:06

Do things the easy way....

Lose your job? Get executed... don't care what the excuse is.
Disabled? Execution... not fit to work... not fit to live.
Foreign? leave now.. not born here.. not welcome..
Chav? Incinerated at birth.

End of story... all problems solved.. and from what a lot of people around here post.. in a way that is culturally acceptable to all the forumites..

Sankari · 21 Jul 2008 at 07:12

McManicMan said:
meanwhile all the people who actually get paid for litter and graffiti cleaning will go out of business

Yeah, because there's just not enough litter and graffiti to go around. :rolleyes:

"Go out of business"? Pffft.

Australia's had a work for the dole system for 10 years, but the UK is only just flirting with the idea. This place is such a welfare state.

Sankari · 21 Jul 2008 at 07:12

Killa_ken said:
I say scrap benefits all together.

Excellent idea, pensioners don't need money! They can live on fresh air and memories.

Just think how much we would save.

Rainmaker · 21 Jul 2008 at 07:36

While the OcUK bandwagon seems to demand one call for the abolition of benefits (and to brand anyone in receipt of them as lazy scum) I felt I ought to point out a couple of things. First of all, the benefit in question is incapacity benefit. By definition, this is a benefit intended to be paid to people who are physically incapable of meaningful work.

If you can't work because of illness or disability you may be able to get Incapacity Benefit (IB), a weekly payment for people who become incapable of work while under State Pension age.

Source - Directgov.

Woe betide me for raising my head above the parpet but surely if the current implementation of this benefit is inadequate the solution is not to force people into work they are by definition incapable of, lest they face starvation and homelessness.

The claims that 2/3 of IB recipients are paid erroneously is dubious at best. If the government knew those 2/3 were claiming fraudulently or incorrectly the current system is more than capable of remedying that immediately - and forcing repayment of any monies paid.

With a general election on the horizon headline grabbing tactics once again rear their head. But come on, seriously, this is ridiculous. Benefits such as Job Seekers', yes, I can pretty much see this working. After all if the government can find a job for someone able to work then good for them! Half the people I know currently would kill for a decent stable job.

Those who are genuinely too ill (or otherwise disabled) to work are already facing enough problems with the benefits system. Yes it needs overhauling, but this isn't the way to do it.

EDIT: Just to save myself the potential need to reply later; No. I'm not an IB claimant!

Sankari · 21 Jul 2008 at 07:44

Rainmaker said:
While the OcUK bandwagon seems to demand one call for the abolition of benefits (and to brand anyone in receipt of them as lazy scum) I felt I ought to point out a couple of things. First of all, the benefit in question is incapacity benefit. By definition, this is a benefit intended to be paid to people who are physically incapable of meaningful work.

Source - Directgov.

Woe betide me for raising my head above the parpet but surely if the current implementation of this benefit is inadequate the solution is not to force people into work they are by definition incapable of, lest they face starvation and homelessness.

The claims that 2/3 of IB recipients are paid erroneously is dubious at best. If the government knew those 2/3 were claiming fraudulently or incorrectly the current system is more than capable of remedying that immediately - and forcing repayment of any monies paid.

With a general election on the horizon headline grabbing tactics once again rear their head. But come on, seriously, this is ridiculous. Benefits such as Job Seekers', yes, I can pretty much see this working. After all if the government can find a job for someone able to work then good for them! Half the people I know currently would kill for a decent stable job.

Those who are genuinely too ill (or otherwise disabled) to work are already facing enough problems with the benefits system. Yes it needs overhauling, but this isn't the way to do it.

EDIT: Just to save myself the potential need to reply later; No. I'm not an IB claimant!

Very interesting, thanks for that. Good points made, too.

SexyGreyFox · 21 Jul 2008 at 08:06

Anybody see Benefit Frauds last week - you may be able to catch it on I-Player.
There was a real scum woman who was in her mid 20s and never worked since she left school.
Of course she had got the obligatory mixed race baby in her pram.
She then went through all her relations who were claiming and thought it was normal.
She got done because she lived with her girlfriend who goes out to work as a bouncer and they'd got video evidence.
You ought to have heard the piece of scum going on and on about how its unfair and its her right to claim.

I was on the dole from Sep 18th 2007 to April 14th 2008 and virtually every day I went out and volunteered myself into work working in a Juvenile prison and the NHS.
The funny thing is that the jobcentre didn't like me doing it.
Its OK asking people go to work for their benefits but in the case of women where do you put all the kids while they work for benefits?

scorza · 21 Jul 2008 at 08:13

1. This will never happen because it violates their rights as set down in the human right's act.

2. I don't have any confidence that they will actually work. It will end up like community service, a joke. People won't bother turning up, or will be on a tea break all day.

Fair play to the govt for trying at least though.

Duke · 21 Jul 2008 at 08:16

No problem with people that genuinely need it, but I'm sure there are many many playing the system which need to be weeded out.

Rainmaker · 21 Jul 2008 at 08:22

Yes, but as I said the current proposals are almost paradoxical. To weed out illegitimate claimants they will enforce blanket work orders on a population who by definition are incapable of meaningful work. That's like saying we know some Irish people/Muslims/human beings are 'terrorists', so let's jail every Irishman/Muslim/human being to make sure we get them all.

There's not only the devastating financial impact this would have on those genuinely in need. What about the impact on the genuine claimant's physical (and mental) health, when they suddenly are told they have to either work for less than minimum wage or else receive no money at all? They know they're incapable of doing so, hence face homelessness and starvation. Those who are marginally more capable than the others might force themselves to start work until their health (and/or sanity) gives out completely. Others might be forced into an altogether more dangerous situation.

I really don't see the logic in this at all. The current system already has mechanisms for fraudulent claims. In fact the extent of the current system results in many legitimate claims being denied, at least initially. I really don't see what real world benefit (pardon the pun) these proposals would have.

Vasquez · 21 Jul 2008 at 08:39

Rainmaker said:
While the OcUK bandwagon seems to demand one call for the abolition of benefits (and to brand anyone in receipt of them as lazy scum) I felt I ought to point out a couple of things. First of all, the benefit in question is incapacity benefit. By definition, this is a benefit intended to be paid to people who are physically incapable of meaningful work.

Source - Directgov.

Woe betide me for raising my head above the parpet but surely if the current implementation of this benefit is inadequate the solution is not to force people into work they are by definition incapable of, lest they face starvation and homelessness.

The claims that 2/3 of IB recipients are paid erroneously is dubious at best. If the government knew those 2/3 were claiming fraudulently or incorrectly the current system is more than capable of remedying that immediately - and forcing repayment of any monies paid.

With a general election on the horizon headline grabbing tactics once again rear their head. But come on, seriously, this is ridiculous. Benefits such as Job Seekers', yes, I can pretty much see this working. After all if the government can find a job for someone able to work then good for them! Half the people I know currently would kill for a decent stable job.

Those who are genuinely too ill (or otherwise disabled) to work are already facing enough problems with the benefits system. Yes it needs overhauling, but this isn't the way to do it.

EDIT: Just to save myself the potential need to reply later; No. I'm not an IB claimant!

This (op) applies to people on Jobseekers allowance not on Incapacity Benefit.

Edit: I'll just say I think this is a brilliant idea, fantastic even but it will never happen, the human rights brigade wont be able to breathe for telling people how you can't force people to work.

Rainmaker · 21 Jul 2008 at 08:44

Not so. Read around and you'll see that they're applying this to IB also. I'm all for getting capable people into work, especially those who have previously chosen to 'milk the system' in preference to earning an honest living. You'll get zero argument from me at all on that score! If they're fit for work, they should be working or at least genuinely looking for work. That or undertaking some kind of legitimate education etc, of course; I'm simply trying to keep my responses simple and on point.

As I said, it's the ridiculous notion of giving the genuinely disabled and sick two entirely unworkable options (work for a pittance or starve) that really rubs me up the wrong way.