Unemployed yoof to pick up litter in return for benefits...

dowie · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:49

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aim-wrong-receive-handouts-straight-away.html

The move is part of Tory plans to ‘abolish’ the scourge of long-term youth unemployment.

Under original plans, claimants would only receive benefits for six months before being required to start an apprenticeship or carry out community work.

Seems fair to me, 6 months dole then if you've not sorted your life out/got a job or decided to pursue a qualification you can do something to help out in return for the cash the rest of us are paying you....

The other news story re: people with obesity etc.. facing sanctions if they don't take steps to help themselves seems like a good move too. Hopefully we'll get child benefit capped at 2 children going forward too if a Tory govt gets in again....

Josh · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:50

Down vote for DailyFail link

However,

Not a bad idea, gets the out doors and will hopefully instil that "must get a job mentalilty" - probably won't work however, some people just lfat out don't want to work sadly.

Danthus · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:51

After six months of claiming this would come into force.

russell664 · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:51

I think it is not a bad idea myself, gives them something to do and will hopefully get them into the mindset for work more.

Mynight · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:52

Personally I think it should be contribution based to an extent. Considering how much I've paid in over the few years I've been working 6 months seems a bit harsh(if I was really struggling to find work). Then again someone whos never worked this should apply without a doubt.

snips86x · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:53

russell664 said:
I think it is not a bad idea myself, gives them something to do and will hopefully get them into the mindset for work more.

Can't really add anything more, great idea but a shame it's taken this long. However, monitoring this will be a different matter!

DaleTheWhale · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:53

Cleaning graffiti would be a good one to add as well, watch their faces sadden as they wash away their greatest achievement.

Won't work for some though, they'll just walk around all day doing nothing.

nuttyprot · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:54

Why not hire the people to do the job? If a person is say doing 30+ hours a week picking litter up should they not be paid minimum wage for it? to me just seems like a way to get cheap labor and sadly see it getting abused

Freakbro · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:54

Mynight said:
Personally I think it should be contribution based to an extent. Considering how much I've paid in over the few years I've been working 6 months seems a bit harsh(if I was really struggling to find work). Then again someone whos never worked this should apply without a doubt.

It's for 18-21 y/o's in this scenario

{SAS}TB · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:54

Might make them think twice before littering / graffitying in the first place ........

Danthus · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:54

Council budgets cuts have meant that people employed to do these sort of jobs found themselves unemployed.

You can almost write the script for the ensuing political argument this will cause.

MikeTheNative · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:55

Why does it only apply to 18 - 21? This makes no sense, what about the lazy ***** that haven't worked for 20 years? They are still sat of their fat asses doing nothing and claiming benefits.

Mynight · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:55

Freakbro said:
It's for 18-21 y/o's in this scenario

Note to self: read article first.

Sorry

.

I do still believe this should be expanded but on a contribution basis.

Cosimo · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:55

All for it. Gets them out of the house and doing something useful instead of just wasting away.

Woden · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:55

So we cut frontline services, like litter picking, make the staff redundant.

Then get kids to do it for under £2 an hour? Genius.

balky12 · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:56

Cue 'against human rights' and 'slavery' brigade.

****ing Liberals.

nuttyprot · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:56

OldCoals said:
Council budgets cuts have meant that people employed to do these sort of jobs found themselves unemployed.

You can almost write the script for the ensuing political argument this will cause.

cuts = people lose job = cant get new job 6 months end up doing job cut from to begin with for a quarter of the cash

LordSplodge · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:57

nuttyprot said:
Why not hire the people to do the job? If a person is say doing 30+ hours a week picking litter up should they not be paid minimum wage for it? to me just seems like a way to get cheap labor and sadly see it getting abused

Will be a boon for cash strapped Councils. No need to employ street cleaners. User the free labour. Kind of like the scheme that gets Tesco and Poundland free labour.

In principle the scheme has merit but it won't be monitored correctly and will be abused. 'Tis but soundbite politics in the pre-election circle jerk.

Freakbro · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:57

OldCoals said:
Council budgets cuts have meant that people employed to do these sort of jobs found themselves unemployed.

You can almost write the script for the ensuing political argument this will cause.

Well Labours proposal of guaranteed jobs for 18-21 y/o's will have the same punitive reduction in benefits if they refuse to do it.

So both sides are looking to reach the same end result, via different means

Freakbro · 17 Feb 2015 at 11:58

MikeTheNative said:
Why does it only apply to 18 - 21? This makes no sense, what about the lazy ***** that haven't worked for 20 years? They are still sat of their fat asses doing nothing and claiming benefits.

Because to be brutally honest, they are now unemployable, I guess this is designed to stop more people getting into that state.