DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments

Government is quite used to getting its own way and changes laws to suit on a periodic basis. Quite a slap in the face for the judicial system, but anyway..
 
On another topic I got a tax rebate of £164 today which was nice. I might spend it on something I pay tax on funny enough. Government are a gbol.
 
Cupra said:
Its a good scheme making people on JSA work and as a tax payer I don't want to be paying for people to work in poundland.
Click to expand...

It's good so long as it's used correctly. I was put to work at a 'charity' (it didn't benefit anyone except the owner) while others were sent to places like Farmfoods, with some of them being offered employment. I would have happily worked for somewhere like Poundland if I there was a chance I could have got a job out of it but instead it was just a waste of time (in my case at least). I'm not against working for benefits so long as there is a job at the end of it (provided that you were there on time, did your work without screwing around etc.), but it can't just be seen as free labour.
 
I agree there must be a chance of a job at the end of the scheme.....or the employer must employment a certain amount of people for a certain length in a given time or struck offf the free labour scam
 
There are loads of jobs out there surely s better use of money would be offering real training courses for people to get them to fill available positions.

For an example get someone a NEBOSH qualification, then a construction specialism costing around 3.5k and they could be applying for the vast amount of CDM co-ordinator jobs around. Just an example to illustrate the point but I'm betting a large amount of those on benefits would jump at a chance of a real career.
 
Tbh all of this is just part and parcel to an agenda along with ideology that seeks to introduce a system involving people working for their benefits should they win the next election.
 
Retrospective legislation is never a good idea and should never be used.

What should happen is that the compensation bill is taken from the budget for jsa for 2013/2014 with all payments reduced by the amount necessary to recoup the cost. This is fair to the taxpayer and those impacted initially, while also providing a clear view that trying to play the system has consequences.
 
In the article there, it says the work fare case was brought by a science student and an "unemployed lorry driver".

Surely if you are unemployed you are just.......... Unemployed.
 
atpbx said:
In the article there, it says the work fare case was brought by a science student and an "unemployed lorry driver".

Surely if you are unemployed you are just.......... Unemployed.
Click to expand...

Just because you're not in work doesn't mean you can't have a "trade", especially if you have specific qualifications in that area..
 
amigafan2003 said:
Just because you're not in work doesn't mean you can't have a "trade", especially if you have specific qualifications in that area..
Click to expand...

But the taxpayer should not be expected to cover someone's desire to work in a specific trade to the exclusion of other available roles.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Just because you're not in work doesn't mean you can't have a "trade", especially if you have specific qualifications in that area..
Click to expand...

My only professional qualification is my HGV license, my job title is regional sales executive north.

I've never claimed benefits or been out of work longer than a day (and that was through choice) he's taken the government to court because they made him go to work.

You do what ever is out there is my opinion, you shouldn't pigeon hole yourself.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Retrospective legislation is never a good idea and should never be used.

What should happen is that the compensation bill is taken from the budget for jsa for 2013/2014 with all payments reduced by the amount necessary to recoup the cost. This is fair to the taxpayer and those impacted initially, while also providing a clear view that trying to play the system has consequences.
Click to expand...

That is not fair however, you are assuming that everyone on JSA is implicitly responsible for the errors of the Government as well as being guilty of 'playing the system'.
 
atpbx said:
My only professional qualification is my HGV license, my job title is regional sales executive north.

I've never claimed benefits or been out of work longer than a day (and that was through choice) he's taken the government to court because they made him go to work.

You do what ever is out there is my opinion, you shouldn't pigeon hole yourself.
Click to expand...

The problem is only there because these new schemes are being shoe horned into regulations written in the early 90's where they didn't exist. The whole jobs market was a complete kettle of fish back then.

When you look at most legislation, its a complete mess, the more complicated you make new legislation or add to old (like in the case above), the more loop holes and difficulty understanding what it actually means.
 
Dolph said:
But the taxpayer should not be expected to cover someone's desire to work in a specific trade to the exclusion of other available roles.
Click to expand...

nor should the taxpayer fund the furniture business by making this guy clean dirty chairs for 30hrs a week, for 6months, for under the minimum wage.

if it was a weeks trial with a full time paid job after, then that would be wholly different AND acceptable.
 
Dolph said:
Retrospective legislation is never a good idea and should never be used.

What should happen is that the compensation bill is taken from the budget for MPs for 2013/2014 with all payments reduced by the amount necessary to recoup the cost. This is fair to the taxpayer and those impacted initially, while also providing a clear view that trying to impose unjust, draconian laws on the poorest section of society who are unemployer through no fault of their own has consequences.
Click to expand...

Would this not be fairer to all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom