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

I presume they will be getting below the minimum wage for doing a days work, why would society want to treat people at the bottom of the ladder in such a inhumane manner ?

The government are happy to target the under 25's given they are less likely to vote therefore they will feel the brunt when it comes to policy making.
 
Everyone needs to stop focussing on 'litter picking' as the only job they will do and the ramifications this will have on the swathes of employed litter pickers already :D

They could also cook meals for the eldery, go shopping for them, work for charities, plenty of other Community work that won't solely put currently employed people out of work :p
 
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?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I agree with the thrust of the argument, but essentially you are saying these people will be working for less than minimum wage.

Would it not be better to invest a little and create some actual "jobs" (this would also look good for stats I imagine). Then these claimants would actually be employed? Jobs could be cleaner, litter picker etc (what they are suggesting now) for local councils and public-run institutions as well as more administrative tasks where appropriate (for example college/university leaver struggling to find a job, or those who have shown aptitude during the six months prior).

The jobs would not be a career as such, so for those who want more there would still be the motivation to move on.

This would cost more to administer of course which is probably why they aren't doing it.
 
Seems fair... If they hadn't made it 30 hours a week...!

I'd be behind the idea if it was (for example) 10 hours a week. As it stands they are basically forcing people to work almost full time for £50 a week, or <£2 an hour.
 
I think it is a good idea but would be far better for everyone if instead of forcing them to do menial tasks like litter picking they were trained to do things like Public Inquiries, the UK loves a good Public Inquiry and spends £MILLIONs and £MILLIONs on them every year, this would benefit everyone far more as instead of paying expensive Legal teams £THOUSANDS an hour over long and convoluted periods (A good UK Inquiry can take YEARS!) we would have these highly trained Inquiry workforce effectively for FREE! They would get valuable and much needed training, the TAX Payer would save £BILLIONs over the long run. I think there should actually be a Public Inquiry in to why we are not doing this already!
 
Amp34 said:
Seems fair... If they hadn't made it 30 hours a week...!

I'd be behind the idea if it was (for example) 10 hours a week. As it stands they are basically forcing people to work almost full time for £50 a week, or <£2 an hour.
Click to expand...

The other 10 hours a week, after the 30, is supposed to be for Job Searching.

So I guess it's a motivator to find a paying job, even a min wage one.
 
The Geezer said:
I presume they will be getting below the minimum wage for doing a days work, why would society want to treat people at the bottom of the ladder in such a inhumane manner?
Click to expand...

Incentive to for them to get off their arses and get a decent job?

We are talking about people who have been unemplyed for 6 months. I have never been unemployed for 6 days since working let alone 6 months.

Can't get the job you think you deserve / want? Get a filler job then.

Why should the state fund you for the long term because you are either lazy or expectations too high?
 
balky12 said:
Cue 'against human rights' and 'slavery' brigade.

****ing Liberals.
Click to expand...

The Geezer said:
I presume they will be getting below the minimum wage for doing a days work, why would society want to treat people at the bottom of the ladder in such a inhumane manner ?

The government are happy to target the under 25's given they are less likely to vote therefore they will feel the brunt when it comes to policy making.
Click to expand...

Getting there........
 
dowie said:
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....
Click to expand...

Shame life isn't that black and white - when I was last out of work I did everything I was "supposed" to do, had more interview requests than I could fit in and still couldn't get a job then moved back to my parents and had a new job within days and had to turn down another - if I was still living where I used to without the option of moving chances are I'd still be unemployed or going from temp job to temp job.

Also it mentions "daily" volunteer work - while personally I'm not against people having to do a certain amount of reciprocation for benefits (none the less it gets them going and out the house which after awhile can be a challenge for those out of work long term) doing more than a few hours/the odd day a week is likely to make it harder not easier for someone to find a job.
 
balky12 said:
Incentive to for them to get off their arses and get a decent job?

We are talking about people who have been unemplyed for 6 months. I have never been unemployed for 6 days since working let alone 6 months.

Can't get the job you think you deserve / want? Get a filler job then.

Why should the state fund you for the long term because you are either lazy or expectations too high?
Click to expand...

When there are regularly well in excess of 20 people applying for one minimum wage job in some areas, it's inevitable that some will be unable to get employment. We certainly don't have a shortage of labour for entry positions, so what can people do?

Individually, you can rise above the crowd to get a job, but by acknowledging the need to do so, we're recognising that not everyone is permitted to succeed.

The state sets the rules of the game, and if that results in excluding some people, then surely it's the state's role to pick up some of the pieces?
 
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.
Click to expand...

its just a start.... could be good to extend to them too - though long term claimants know the system and after a few years will have convinced their GP to give them a note for some 'cundishun' or other and will presumably be on ESA by now...
 
Last edited:
balky12 said:
Can't get the job you think you deserve / want? Get a filler job then.
Click to expand...

Wish i could I keep getting rejected from 'filler jobs' for being over qualified and the jobs I'm qualified for getting rejected for not having enough relevant experience. I swear this is the worst the job market has ever been in my area normally I have been able to get a job easily in < 2 weeks and now its 6 weeks and no luck so far. Thats applying for everything from minimum wage retail roles to graduate engineer roles!

On the thread topic, I think its a good idea, though should be for everyone not just 18-21 year olds.
 
cheesyboy said:
When there are regularly well in excess of 20 people applying for one minimum wage job in some areas, it's inevitable that some will be unable to get employment. We certainly don't have a shortage of labour for entry positions, so what can people do?

Individually, you can rise above the crowd to get a job, but by acknowledging the need to do so, we're recognising that not everyone is permitted to succeed.

The state sets the rules of the game, and if that results in excluding some people, then surely it's the state's role to pick up some of the pieces?
Click to expand...

Pick up some of the pieces. I don't disagree. Long term unemployment due to laziness, unwillingness, too higher expectations does not cover this though imo.

Can't get the job you want? Keep trying. Or perhaps go for something else that has some relevance. Still struggling, perhaps go for some more training. Don't want to train? Then get a job doing anything.

Jobs are being created (and made redundant) constantly. I walk down my highstreet and see vacancy posters everywhere. Local shopping center exactly the same. In the city there are constantly jobs available. If you are that good companies create a job for you, to not lose you to a rival.

Maybe it's because I got lucky, maybe it's because I have put the hard work and effort in, maybe it's because I'm driven. But I can't see how people can not have a job for so long. Whether it's out of choice or not.
 
Are they working directly for the state? Will supervisory jobs be created at councils to manage these people?

Or should I invest in some G4S shares?
 
I like the idea but:

If its JSA money for full time work then I'm total against it

If its just part time to cover with enough hours to cover what people normal get, why not employ them ?

It strikes me as as a plan to appease the daily mail pensioners who vote and/or a cheap way to get some labour in to menial jobs which they rather not pay people a good wage for.
 
Repta said:
Wish i could I keep getting rejected from 'filler jobs' for being over qualified and the jobs I'm qualified for getting rejected for not having enough relevant experience. I swear this is the worst the job market has ever been in my area normally I have been able to get a job easily in < 2 weeks and now its 6 weeks and no luck so far. Thats applying for everything from minimum wage retail roles to graduate engineer roles!

On the thread topic, I think its a good idea, though should be for everyone not just 18-21 year olds.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it is a walk in the park. Ok you are struggling, it's been 6 weeks. I highly doubt you will hit 6 months.

Where do you live / what kind of engineer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom