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

[ethan]

Terrible jobs too, I hate people who make money owning care homes ripping off the govt, the people being "cared" for and their sons and daughters and the people they fool into working for them.

Jaundiced view much. You'll go far. Nobody is fooled in to working for them at all and all practices are regulated.

 

[arknor]

Extend it to all dole claimers, not just yoofs.

Extend it to pensioners as well force them to visit and help each other within the community saving on the need for expensive care workers.

Stay at home benefit mums can either do the OAP thing or be class room assistants, either guarantees a full time nursery place to help facilitate this

 

[AndyT]

That is a really short sighted view of it and which is why we will always have the problem of people being on the dole. Not everyone on the dole is some scrounger who has never done a days hard work, you will find plenty who have worked and payed tax and payed into the system, from memory there is a NI contribution based dole so you get yours from essentially the money you payed in.

The welfare system is a great thing in essence it is supposed to help those who need it, for exampled the severely disabled and its supposed to be a temporary fall back for the working able when they are out of a job. Of course there are those who will milk and scam the system, there always will be those kind, but not everyone is on it to scam the system nor are they all alcoholics who have never had a bath.

In reality no one would want to live on £50 a week, that is no life, so it makes no sense for someone to scrounge £50. The problem with making them clean the streets is that it isn't solving the issue of them not having a job, what exactly are they going to gain from it? If the idea is to make them get fed up and sign off, then the scroungers who are just milking the system will turn to criminality, the ones that aren't will just fall into poverty.

Why not actually create jobs and match dolers to these jobs, send these kids to some sort of training so they can learn a skill etc. Basically get them doing something that will actually get them a secure job and off the dole for good.

Rubbish. The reason the public sector has been cut back so much recently is exactly because non-jobs were created for a load of unmotivated buffoons in the 90s, so they could have a go at being grown up too. A lot of these are now being stripped away, there are still a load of overpaid senior public sector people who should have gone before certain front line service people, but that's another matter.

We don't REALLY need more litter pickers, we can survive, but it's a nice to have, and if there are people sat around not doing anything for 168 hours in a week, why not get them doing something? You can be sure that the majority of them aren't out making themselves more employable or upskilling. The libraries are empty but the pubs and betting shops are chocka. Good eh?

Typed on phone in bed with fat fingers, hence poor grammar.

 

[AndyT]

Extend it to pensioners as well force them to visit and help each other within the community saving on the need for expensive care workers.

Stay at home benefit mums can either do the OAP thing or be class room assistants, either guarantees a full time nursery place to help facilitate this

Good plan, I like it.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

It really does defy logic. A student that wants the job over 2-4 years will be a more enticing prospect than a graduate who is probably desperate, will more than likely leave relatively quickly and get bored very easily.

No, it really doesn't. Qualifications mean not a lot to retailers (unless you're applying for management, marketing, etc.). Your character does. If you're a nob, you'll put customers off. If you're well mannered and presentable, they'll like you.

"Loyalty" means nothing to them, nor does expected longevity.

Even management come and go on a whim. They are constantly transferring around from store to store for various reasons.

 

[V F]

H&S is a good thing.... the bad thing about it is, like anything, its how it is written and then interpreted. But the be all and end all of it is that its Common sense. If something is hot dont touch it, if the floor is wet it is going to be slippy. Problem comes when something is Hot and the warning sign isnt stuck in the right place and someone goes " oooo ill touch that", they get burnt, sue the company, and then the the H&S officer goes "hmm we need to do xy and z to prevent it from happening again".

Be better if the book was written like this.

If its hot, it will burn. Dont touch it
If the floor is wet with a substance, clean it up dont walk on it.
Flame's burn things, dont set fire to a colleague for fun.
Sharpe items cut you. Dont glide your finger across it.
Etc etc.

Typed on phone in bed with fat fingers, hence poor grammar.

Lol! Reading this made me think of Steve Hughes.

 

[mmj_uk]

It looks like they'll be going after low paid workers next:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-scroungers-and-aiming-britain-s-working-poor

One change in particular threatens to scupper Cameron’s claim to be on the side of Britain’s hard working people. In an alteration to legislation that went largely unnoticed at the end of last month, the government introduced a pilot for 15,000 low-paid working universal credit claimants. Those participating in the mandatory scheme may find that their benefits are reduced if they do not actively seek to work more hours or increase their salary.

The change is important because this policy goes beyond targeting jobseekers, the sick and disabled. If penalises those who are hard at work, maintaining part-time, low-salaried jobs

First they came for the disabled, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not disabled.
Then they came for the unemployed, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not unemployed.
Then they came for the low paid, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not low paid.
etc.

Slippery slope indeed, it looks like we're becoming the 21st century China whereas their standard of living, wages etc are on the rise.

 

[arknor]

they are still going after the disabled, people aren't just getting swapped straight to universal credit they are being reassessed.

apparently it's a sucess because 5% more people found more jobs but that was more likely just the economy recovering and people hiring again

2013-2014 fraud and error infograph

lol

 

[Redz]

Arbeit macht frei

 

[Angilion]

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?

An employer I know recently advertised for a flunkey to work on demand with 1 week's notice, swing shifts galore and usually unsociable hours. The pay rate was 30p/hour above minimum wage. They had over 100 applicants.

I think you do not know what you're talking about.

Policies like this, obviously, make the situation worse for the working poor. That has to be the point of them because nobody can be foolish enough to be unable to see the results. If businesses can get free labour (does anyone think really think that if this happens "community service" won't include businesses?) they're either going to get rid of their paid employees or be undercut and put out of business by a competitor running on free labour. Also, if it's established that it's reasonable to pay poor people £2/hour because they're just lazy spongers and minimum wage laws don't apply to them, it's damn silly to think that won't have any effect on the employment of poor people.

 

[Freakbro]

It looks like they'll be going after low paid workers next:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-scroungers-and-aiming-britain-s-working-poor

Jesus, the Conservatives never fail to astound me with how far they will go with the 'beat people with a stick and spare the carrot' approach to social policy

This was worth quoting again, as I would like to know peoples views on that.

Not working / earning enough? (And that seems to be under 35 hours / week on min wage) - Have some more sanctions and reduced benefits.

So the Universal Credit system was set up to help people back into work and not being put off from taking low paid part time work as it would now be a gradual reduction in benefits and not a cut off, leading to the situation where you are better off not working.

So now they are looking to pilot a scheme where you can be penalised and have benefits reduced for being in part time low paid work and not looking to increase that to >=35 hrs / week

Great.... If that's what businesses are offering, it hardly seems fair to then penalise people within the system you set up for taking those jobs and what gets me is who then are going to be doing these low paid part time jobs?

 

[balky12]

An employer I know recently advertised for a flunkey to work on demand with 1 week's notice, swing shifts galore and usually unsociable hours. The pay rate was 30p/hour above minimum wage. They had over 100 applicants.

I think you do not know what you're talking about.

Apologies, it might be because I haven't had my monring coffee yet, but how did your post highlight that I do not know what I am talking about?

Is it the fact that people do apply for **** jobs? I never said they didn't.

 

[DampDog]

The ones emptying the bins, sweeping the streets and cleaning the council public loos should be for people residing at her majesties pleasure IMO......

There should be rolling work placements set aside specifically for the long term unemployed and they should be paid minimum wage not working for free just to be able to claim benefit.
It should be training to further them on the ladder not just another hand out hurdle to cross, there's no incentive otherwise.

Those are my thoughts. For years "community service" has been deemed one of the methods of punishing people and having them seen to be repaying a debt to society for breaking the law. So does that mean people are now "guilty" of being unemployed and are to be punished accordingly? Just had a quick Google and jobseekers allowance is £57.35 for the 17-24's So around £8.19 a day (probably less than most MP's would spend on breakfast) Instead of taking away what little self esteem they have by getting them to pick litter off the streets. Why not kick businesses up the backside and have them take in these youngsters and teach them the skills they're always moaning would be employees don't have? Once upon a time if you didn't already possess the skills required they would offer an apprenticeship and teach you the required skills. Often at less that the going rate until you were qualified. If was a two way thing, you were prepared to work for less because you knew you would have a real qualification at the end.

I also find it a bit rich, that these crackdowns on the young unemployed are being championed by some of the richest in our society. I happened to catch "Inside the Commons, BBC2" The people who are telling us £8.19 a day for doing nothing is too much are surrounded by oak panelled corridors, walking on inch thick axe-minster carpet, cocooned in costume and age old pageantry that serves no purpose. Better still they eat in subsidised restaurants, drink in subsidised bars and keep fit in subsidised gyms. I'd be willing to bet they blow through £8.19 by their first coffee of the day.

What's the going rate for sitting in the house of Lords, £250 a day for just signing in?

 

[cheesyboy]

Apologies, it might be because I haven't had my monring coffee yet, but how did your post highlight that I do not know what I am talking about?

Is it the fact that people do apply for **** jobs? I never said they didn't.

You don't know what you're talking about when you suggest unemployed people should "get a filler job then". Angilion correctly pointed out that these "filler jobs" are massively oversubscribed and you can't simply "get" one.

 

[balky12]

You don't know what you're talking about when you suggest unemployed people should "get a filler job then". Angilion correctly pointed out that these "filler jobs" are massively oversubscribed and you can't simply "get" one.

Maybe I am wrong. But I constantly see jobs advertised for temp/perm full time/ part time jobs in all sorts of areas both local and in the city.

Yes they maybe oversubscribed. But if you are consistently not being chosen and left unemployed long term, in this case 6 months plus, then you have to take a long hard look at yourself.

Again, don't lose sight of the topic. I'm not digging out the unemployed. It's the long term unemployed. Massive difference.

 

[LordSplodge]

Definitely not but Health and Safety has made excuses for just about anything. Followed by… Human Rights. ¬¬

Yes damn modern Health and Safety and Human Rights laws for protecting people from danger and abuse!

Much better in the olden days when workhouses could be stocked by the poor and work got done (also people died - a lot!)

 

[The Geezer]

Again, don't lose sight of the topic. I'm not digging out the unemployed. It's the long term unemployed. Massive difference.

Again get the facts:

The Conservatives had previously announced plans to limit jobseeker’s allowance for 18- to 21-year-olds to six months before they were required to undertake community work.

But Cameron will scrap the idea of an initial six-month period on the dole, and instead say the young unemployed should immediately be put into community work if they want to claim any benefit.

 

[lemonade]

Rubbish. The reason the public sector has been cut back so much recently is exactly because non-jobs were created for a load of unmotivated buffoons in the 90s, so they could have a go at being grown up too. A lot of these are now being stripped away, there are still a load of overpaid senior public sector people who should have gone before certain front line service people, but that's another matter.

We don't REALLY need more litter pickers, we can survive, but it's a nice to have, and if there are people sat around not doing anything for 168 hours in a week, why not get them doing something? You can be sure that the majority of them aren't out making themselves more employable or upskilling. The libraries are empty but the pubs and betting shops are chocka. Good eh?

Typed on phone in bed with fat fingers, hence poor grammar.

That's nonsense to be honest, most of these jobs have been cut to save money because of the shortfall in funding, which has actually resulted in more rubbish services from areas like the council, typical tory cost-cutting, which has left yet more people unemployed. Beside the point I am not just talking about creating public sector jobs.

Either way your solution it basically to keep people on the dole and make them work like slaves for nothing. Great solution that and I am sure it will create a great society.

 

[lemonade]

Maybe I am wrong. But I constantly see jobs advertised for temp/perm full time/ part time jobs in all sorts of areas both local and in the city.

Yes they maybe oversubscribed. But if you are consistently not being chosen and left unemployed long term, in this case 6 months plus, then you have to take a long hard look at yourself.

Again, don't lose sight of the topic. I'm not digging out the unemployed. It's the long term unemployed. Massive difference.

Most of those jobs are non-existent, you go to sites like reed, jobsite etc, half the jobs dont exist, you apply and all you get is a bombardment of spam from recruitment agencies.

 

[balky12]

Maybe it doesn't directly correlate into these areas but it was no secret that Labour created jobs in the public sector to help unemployment rates. Middle management was a big issue in the NHS at one point.