working for your dole......

[Allnamestaken]

What about a 48 year old skilled family man he doesn't need the self respect a tenner will give him, why don't you swap positions with him you're no better than the man I made up just a tiny bit luckier, there is zero self respect in Bering a slave to marginally luckier folk than oneself, I desperately hope those dumping on the unemployed lose their jobs for a few years.

I have been in both situations, I have been on the dole and the first job i could take to get off it that had me better off I took.

Ive leaped onwards ever since.

I say what I say with experiance from both sides of the fence.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Im talking about people who refuse to work because they dont want to work and be better off by 20 to 50 pounds as they see that as not enough..

Thats sheer lazyness, they refuse to work and job search and apply for work knowing they would be better off. Being 20 to 50 pounds better off working than on benefit is still better off.

I work with these people as much as I can and if they continue to refuse I will mandate them to come in all the time to do everything they possibly can aka job search referals to external training.


They dont get a free ride because they choose they dont want to do anything.


Im not talking about every single person im talking about the ****ing lazy scumbags.

Define 'better off'? Better off in the eyes of whom? You? And by what measure? Nice and easy sitting in your office looking at numbers on some paperwork I expect. The reality is possibly very different.

Granted, they may have slightly more money coming in every week, but they will also have more going out, most likely on travel costs. Or is this accounted for in the 'better off' equation? If not, then that extra money soon reduces.

Once my father was out of work due to redundancy and he was asked to work a 80hr week on a pittance (this was prior to NMW) which meant he was only £3.80 a week better off than being on the dole. He took the job, but many wouldn't. Who can blame them? 11hrs a day, 7 days a week for an extra £3.80.

He worked his fingers to the bone for that pittance and what did it get him? Pride? Self respect? Maybe so, but it didnt help his family life because he was at work all the time and irritable and short tempered when at home. It didnt help him physically or mentally due to the hours and the graft. But yeah - for £3.80 at least he was 'better off' than being on the dole, right?

You earn 23k a year. If you work an average of 40hrs a week, someone on NMW would need to work twice the hours you do in order to bring home that money. Are you rich? Can you afford to stand on your own two feet? Probably not, and if you can it is barely. So what chance have they got? Would you work the same hours as you do for half the money, or twice as many for the same wage?

Why should we scorn people for not wanting to race to the bottom? Working for workings sake is not really the incentive we need to promote. We need jobs that pay a good wage and allow people to be truly 'better off', not a government that tries to cut benefits because it is easier, or a government that allows 0hr contracts to manipulate unemployment stats, or a government that runs a poor economy whilst lining their own pockets.

The unemployed are a minority and this kind of pervasive negativity towards them is unhelpful. Why are we bashing those most in need when there are people far more deserving of our scorn?

 

[hurfdurf]

I never said make benifits worse.

Im just saying there are people not willing to get off thee arse who are completely able to work. They refuse to be better off by 10 to 50 a week than they are on benefits due to sheer lazyness. At the end of the day if ur better off ur better off.

You dont get to point Z for free you start at point A. If that involves being better off only by 50 pounds your still 50 pounds up and not 50 pounds down.

I have no pitty for people like that, on the other hand there are people who genuinely cant work and I help them and guide them untill they are ready and able to work. I also work with young people and guide them into careers I dont just throw them into dead end pound land jobs to hit targets, this goes against my companys wants but at the end of the day I would rather push them into sustainment.

The problem is point A is akin to slavery where by one works for the bare minimums just to live, and getting to C never mind Z is impossible for many, so why ever start at A?

If A was worth doing then its rewards should be more than just the basics to live, the problem here isn't with the people at the bottom, it's that too much money has gone to the top.

 

[elmarko]

I never said make benifits worse.

Im just saying there are people not willing to get off thee arse who are completely able to work. They refuse to be better off by 10 to 50 a week than they are on benefits due to sheer lazyness. At the end of the day if ur better off ur better off.

You dont get to point Z for free you start at point A. If that involves being better off only by 50 pounds your still 50 pounds up and not 50 pounds down.

I have no pitty for people like that, on the other hand there are people who genuinely cant work and I help them and guide them untill they are ready and able to work. I also work with young people and guide them into careers I dont just throw them into dead end pound land jobs to hit targets, this goes against my companys wants but at the end of the day I would rather push them into sustainment.

It's stupid to expect people to graft hard working a full week for an extra £10 a week, while it may be beneficial in the long-term (increased prospects) - it's usually a good idea to recognise reality when making policy.

I'd wager many people value 35/40 hours of time more than you do.

 

[pitchfork]

Is the scheme ultimately self defeating then? Companies snap up the cheap labour from the Workfare pot. They not longer need to employ folk at the going rate or take on new staff. So instead of creating positions it simply means there will be less and less "real" opportunities for employment.

Plus it just doesn't have the feel of a scheme designed to create job opportunities more of a mechanism to punish those who are deemed to be workshy by the system. The premise seems to be that all these people have simply chosen to be out of work so should be punished. Thing is they've been tinkering with the benefits system anyway so it's thrown lots of people off disability allowance and into the jobs market. And employers only need the faintest whiff of poor health to throw you off the list.

Pretty much yeah, public sector HR depts work differently to private so there's some sort of potential but realistically all this kind of scheme does is boost unemployment and benefit the shareholders of private sector firms.

Which, given the corruption and greed that runs rampant among the tory party is not even the least bit surprising.

Neoliberals for you man, they care only for the economy, never for society.

 

[atpbx]

Well, perhaps other people place a higher value on 37.5 hours on their time than you do.

Personally, I don't blame people for not wanting to work & be only slightly better off - the problem isn't lazyness, it's just that wages on the bottom are not high enough.

It's should be hardly surprising that some people find the fact that if they get a job, they will be £20 a week better off demotivating - they should be significantly better off (to ensure they are rewarded for hard work).

Indeed, why anybody would think the solution should be to force those who already have virtually nothing into further poverty (resulting in crime, health problems which cost us more in the long-term) is beyond me.

Even people who lack the ethical insight on the matter should view JSA as what it really is now-days, a method of subduing the poorest to prevent vastly increased crime, reduced social cohesion & regular riots (which cost more than the comparative pennies JSA costs us).

It shouldnt be an option of work or live on the dole, it should be work, or have nothing if you refuse it.

I dont disagree that some wages often at the bottom end are pitiful, but if you offer a bigger carrot you have to also offer a bigger stick.

Because like it or not, there are people out there who simply do not want to work, and find the only being 10 or 20 a week better off argument a convenient smokescreen to hide behind.

So the ideal situation in my eyes is yes, offer more money at the bottom end, but also sanction those that still refuse to seek work by withdrawing benefits if they refuse these new super empowering worthwhile jobs as they will then have no real excuse not to do them.

 

[Allnamestaken]

So it's gone from £10 better off to £50 better off.....

I don't drive and if I get a job where I'm only £10 better off but then have to spend more than that just to get to work then I should HAVE to do it?

Oh please, I give varying amounts because it changes for each individuals circumstances these are just averages.

 

[deuse]

Come on guys\gals we know this is never going to happen ever.

 

[Allnamestaken]

It's stupid to expect people to graft hard working a full week for an extra £10 a week, while it may be beneficial in the long-term (increased prospects) - it's usually a good idea to recognise reality when making policy.

I'd wager many people value 35/40 hours of time more than you do.

If someone wants to be defeatist and stay on benefits and not apply for jobs because they are only better off by a little bit then they can stay on it.

This government however will make it more and more difficult for those people.

In the current climate would you rather be victim to these ever changing horrible new schemes that the dole put out or would your rather get off and be better off even by a little and independant of it all.

If healthy and able that is?

Seeing what happens in the work programme and the job centre and the hell some clients go through for there small amount of benefits is not nice.
I would leap at the first thing that got me off it just so I could use that to get propel me forward.

 

[demonix]

I work with people on benefits, and occasionaly I get someone who says "why should I work to be £10 better off"

I say to them for self respect and to be proud of themselves to further them selves among other things. They come back to me saying that if why should they bother for £10 as they could do nothing and get what they need now.

This honestly ****s me off, Its like I might as well take money out of my hand and give it to these runts as thats exactly whats happening via the taxes I pay.

In the end I mention to them you could stay on your benefits and decide you dont want to work even though you could be better off while working even if it is only by 20 or 30 pounds. If thats what you decide I can mandate you to attend every day 5 days a week as until you realise that being on JSA and benefits really is not a better choice.

I ****ing hate people like that.

I would certainly say that I wouldn't be in that crowd as I'd jump for joy if I got a 16h/week job at the minimum wage since it would put around £100 more into my pocket then what I get on JSA, and with my low outgoings it means that I'll have more money to get myself things.

The problem is trying to get employers to see past the gaping gap in my work history (I have recently attended a course what I've just added to my CV since I actually got something from it), and see me for the person I will be when I start working (all I've had thus far is a large amount of no replies, a few rejections, two interviews and two assessments (I haven't included these in the interviews since they were just assessments even though one of the interviews did include an assessment) at asda).

 

[elmarko]

It shouldnt be an option of work or live on the dole, it should be work, or have nothing if you refuse it.

I dont disagree that some wages often at the bottom end are pitiful, but if you offer a bigger carrot you have to also offer a bigger stick.

Because like it or not, there are people out there who simply do not want to work, and find the only being 10 or 20 a week better off argument a convenient smokescreen to hide behind.

So the ideal situation in my eyes is yes, offer more money at the bottom end, but also sanction those that still refuse to seek work by withdrawing benefits if they refuse these new super empowering worthwhile jobs as they will then have no real excuse not to do them.

Okay, you say - get nothing if they refuse it.

Are you factoring the increased costs of policing & costs to our health service when making that decision?, is this a net gain or will it actually cost us more?.

I'm not denying that some people simply don't want to work (neither of us have the actual figures on how many, but some will exist) - what I'm questioning is if your solution will actually cost us more or not.

You only need one desperate person to resort to crime to cost in order of magnitudes more than a few JSA payments.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Not all of us can go for that 16h a week job though, I live alone and I have to pay rent, council tax, etc.. I need 30 hours a week minimum, I don't drive and nearest city is 2 hours away by bus.

99% of the jobs that I can actually apply for in my area are under 16 hours a week.

The likelyhood of me being long term unemployed is pretty much certain and this means I am going to be penalised through no fault of my own.

The problem with these government initiatives is that they are a catch all. They, and the general public, don't care about circumstances all they see is that they are paying for me to live and the amount of abuse I have to put up with is ridiculous.

 

[Allnamestaken]

Mate, I take issue with the ones who willingly refuse to work.

Not the people who want to work but need help to get them on the right track as they have been out for a while.

I take issue with the people who refuse due to there confused attitudes and ignorance to what is possible to improve them selves. I try to help these people but there are people who refuse outright due to wanting to be on dole rather then work.


I dont beat on these people, I have been one of these people. I worked crappy jobs and improved myself and now I work a job for a fairly decent wage.

I stand on my own two feet and it was through hard work that I got here. I try to teach that to other people. So they can make the right choices for them. Sometimes they just say they would rather be on dole than work for a few tenners extra then what they get.

Thats a defeatist attitude, if you dont want to start at point a and refuse to then when will you ever make the choice to move.

Its a choice.


It shouldnt be a choice to be on dole or to work, it should be a choice of survival. Once you have got urself on ur feet and are able to survive you can look to improving ur situation.




Also when I do my better off calculations with people it adds in all there monthly outgoings and potential income and any tax credits they are allowed. This all includes travel. We then look for jobs based on what they need to be better off. I dont look for the bare minimum for them to be better off. I just give them an example of the BARE minimum they need to be better off and they work from there.

 

[86JR]

The problem I have with this policy is that the government seem to be targeting the weak, vulnerable and poor for very little gain vs the effort required.

In opposite to Labours view of taxing the rich even more so that more poor people can sit around all day spending their tax dollars (or pounds in our case) ?

Soon we will be paying 90% income tax - it is the only way that we will be able to support people who can't be bothered.

What happens when there are more people on the dole than those who work? Labour government favors these people which means they will never be voted out if the majority love labour because it lets them sit around all day.

It is going to get very silly very soon.

 

[Glaucus]

Not all of us can go for that 16h a week job though, I live alone and I have to pay rent, council tax, etc.. I need 30 hours a week minimum, I don't drive and nearest city is 2 hours away by bus.

99% of the jobs that I can actually apply for in my area are under 16 hours a week.

The likelyhood of me being long term unemployed is pretty much certain and this means I am going to be penalised through no fault of my own.

The problem with these government initiatives is that they are a catch all. They, and the general public, don't care about circumstances all they see is that they are paying for me to live and the amount of abuse I have to put up with is ridiculous.

2hrs by bus? How far by moped, or bicycle. How about moving, plenty of options.
I mean my current flat mate moved to bristol away from her husband for an 11month contract, thankfully shes now got a job closer to home and is going back. Do you think she would have that job, if she just gave up and went on the dole.

Options that plenty of others have already done.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

2hrs by bus? How far by moped, or bicycle. How about moving, plenty of options.
I mean my current flat mate moved to bristol away from her husband for an 11month contract, thankfully shes now got a job closer to home and is going back. Do you think she would have that job, if she just gave up and went on the dole.

Options that plenty of others have already done.

How can I afford a bike or moped?

How can I afford to move?

Most rental places require a bond usually around £500 and then the first months rent in advance, then there is the fact that I am cut off from any support network family wise as they won't be local anymore.

I'm not making excuses, I had a job recently that didn't pan out as it was assembly work and the orders dried up and since I was the last in I was first out. I'm not quite long term unemployed but I am sick of being lumped in together with the dossers.

 

[The Geezer]

Those figures are incorrect.
Also, disregarding that, you don't pay tax on turnover.

Source: http://www.bdlive.co.za/world/europe/2013/10/01/google-pays-11m-tax-on-uk-earnings

Make of it as you will, I can clearly state that if these corporates paid their due tax rather than avoiding their obligations in countries they do business in the Chancellor wouldn't be chasing the few thousand long term unemployed or disabled folks.

 

[Glaucus]

Easily a bicycle costs nothing.loads of free ones about.
Mopeds a few hundred max, and you'r paying rent so can pay rent elsewhere, yu can even get a job in another part of the country before even moving. Defeatists attitude, not a surprise.
Its amazing what you can do if you want, just a small percent of the population cba. And it shows in their attitude.
Which is what this scheme is aimed at you have two years to sort your life out, after that you do some menial tasks for your benefits.

 

[Allnamestaken]

Keep in mind guys even with all my posts in this thread, I do not support this gov initiative. It will be badly implemented like many of the half assed measures they put in place that I work and experiance everyday, it will cost tax payers more money and be a downright failure. Why? because they will rush it out. This is not something that can be done over night.

Also private business should not profit off of this as they should not work per hour for less then there JSA. That would essentially be them working for less then minimum wage and that is surely unfair. They should be offered the ability to do work equivlent to what they are paid in areas that help the community. This should all be done on individual basis as there are people who cant do any of these things but you know they faff it all up so \o/

 

[tom_e]

How can I afford a bike or moped?

How can I afford to move?

Most rental places require a bond usually around £500 and then the first months rent in advance, then there is the fact that I am cut off from any support network family wise as they won't be local anymore.

I'm not making excuses, I had a job recently that didn't pan out as it was assembly work and the orders dried up and since I was the last in I was first out. I'm not quite long term unemployed but I am sick of being lumped in together with the dossers.

If things get that bad where you're on the dole for an extended period of time then a 2 hour commute each way while saving to either move or get better transport isn't exactly the end of the world.
When I first started the job I'm in now it was my first proper job out of uni and I'd been on the dole for a couple of months, my commute was about 1.5 hours each way from a combination of bus and walking, but it was a dam site better than trying to live on pittance.
I've since moved but it's still an hour in the morning and then luckily only 30 minutes in the evening when I can get a lift, but again it's better than being handed a few quid a week and having to go near a job centre.