The unemployed

PlaneLiquid · 16 Aug 2006 at 20:21

Dunno if it's still the same as it was in the late 90s, but New Deal used to be £10 more than dole (so £210ish a month) but you do full time "voluntary work" or environmental work. So basically 140 hours a month for £210, less if you go to any interviews etc, if you refuse to do a job then they kick you off the dole. There are some educational bits too I think, but mainly you can enjoy that £1.50/hour for your efforts.

Von Smallhausen · 16 Aug 2006 at 20:25

Lopéz said:
My current employer is taking on staff now. Can you read, write and string together a sentence? If so then they will employ you. Most supermarkets will have similar criteria. There are lots of jobs available that people won't do because they don't pay enough, yet they can afford to live on the dole in the meantime I really don't understand that, can anybody enlighten me?

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party.

Lopéz · 16 Aug 2006 at 20:31

Von Smallhausen said:
That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party.

Lol, it wasn't meant to come across like that although it does have Thatcherist undertones I suppose

It was a serious question. You can sit at home with zero (or very minimal) money coming in yet quadrupling this income with a supermarket wage is unnacceptable? The dole must have awesome perks because I can't see how it's feasible to live on it unless you have a rent-free, bill-free abode which you never leave.

crystaline · 16 Aug 2006 at 20:31

Lopéz said:
Lol, it wasn't meant to come across like that although it does have Thatcherist undertones I suppose It was a serious question. You can sit at home with zero (or very minimal) money coming in yet quadrupling this income with a supermarket wage is unnacceptable? The dole must have awesome perks because I can't see how it's feasible to live on it unless you have a rent-free, bill-free abode which you never leave.

benefit fraud and crime?

Gaygle · 16 Aug 2006 at 21:06

I thought they do it on "If you have been jobless for 3months or more" you are classified as "unemployed", not if you are just in between jobs IIRC

VeNT · 16 Aug 2006 at 21:08

Gaygle said:
I thought they do it on "If you have been jobless for 3months or more" you are classified as "unemployed", not if you are just in between jobs IIRC

you also have to be claiming a set of benifits (ie not the new deal etc) and some other critira, the whole things lies damn lies and statistics.

Von Smallhausen · 16 Aug 2006 at 21:10

Lopéz said:
Lol, it wasn't meant to come across like that although it does have Thatcherist undertones I suppose It was a serious question. You can sit at home with zero (or very minimal) money coming in yet quadrupling this income with a supermarket wage is unnacceptable? The dole must have awesome perks because I can't see how it's feasible to live on it unless you have a rent-free, bill-free abode which you never leave.

In all seriousness, it's a very good point.

VeNT · 16 Aug 2006 at 21:25

Von Smallhausen said:
In all seriousness, it's a very good point.

I dunno what it is now, but I was on jobseekers 2 years ago for a few months, I got about £42 a week, having to look for work in the region three times in that week.
I was living at home at the time, no car etc (realy put a crimp on jobs, you'ed be amased) so it wasn't an issue, but if I was to do that now it would be REALY dificult (for me) unless I was busking (wonder if you can busk with IT skills?) or getting money another way.
I know of only one person who would never work, he was a real layabout, mooched money off his 17 year old girlfriend (her family gave her a £300 a month allowance) and sat around the house all day playing playstation all day, ALL DAY, non stop, smoking all day. wouldn't even go out and LOOK for a job.
I tell myself that he was the exception rather than the rule, but sometimes I wonder.

alexakasloth · 16 Aug 2006 at 21:56

I'm unemployed

Well kinda, i'm doing some work experiance editing wedding videos.

gc123 · 16 Aug 2006 at 22:04

Ive recently had a serious accident leaving me unable to work and the paper work is unbelievable even though im seriously hurt and have paper work and medical notes to prove it, i dont how all these people get the stuff so easily as i found it hard to fill in the paper work which incidentally is pages and pages long[/QUOTE]
i know the feeling,............. i was injured 6 years ago, damaging my back, i was lucky i had trained my wife to be an autoelectrician (sending her on various courses) so now i just do a bit of office work

i looked at the DLA forms and quite frankly gave up.

xyphic · 16 Aug 2006 at 22:16

VeNT said:
I'm sure I can find somthing for the unemployable to do, you want your dole? old Mrs miggens down the road need her fence painting, heres a brush, heres some paint, when its done come back and you can have your money!

That's how I think it should work. I do understand that there are generally legitimate reasons why someone is out of work, be it due to a lack of jobs or whatever. But I think that while claiming, unless you have a disability that prevents it, you should have to put something back into the community, either by litter picking, gardening, conservation, or similar. Give time off for job interviews, but make it clear that you can't get something for nothing.

I won't pretend there aren't issues with the idea (e.g. it might actually be enjoyable for some people and they'd be getting paid for something others are doing voluntarily!) but there are *major* problems with the current system.

locutus12 · 16 Aug 2006 at 23:10

xyphic said:
That's how I think it should work. I do understand that there are generally legitimate reasons why someone is out of work, be it due to a lack of jobs or whatever. But I think that while claiming, unless you have a disability that prevents it, you should have to put something back into the community, either by litter picking, gardening, conservation, or similar. Give time off for job interviews, but make it clear that you can't get something for nothing.

unfortunatly the reason why that wont happen are two fold,

firstly they would be classed as employed, and even if the government said they were not it only takes one person to bring a court case against the government, and as such they would be entitled to the minimum wage, which means each job seeker could do no more than 10 hours a week without the government having to pay them more...

secondly running such a scheme would be a beurocratic nightmare, managing a work force of over a million people, it would cost huge ammounts of money.

M0KUJ1N · 16 Aug 2006 at 23:21

[satire] How about, instead of having large amounts of people sponging off the state, and large amounts of homeless people and people on disability we.....

use them as fuel!

3 birds with one stone- rising fuel costs curbed, drains on taxes and resources alleviated, and useless people find a (rather basic) use

In next week's installment...Logan's Run- a model for future pension fund problems
[/satire]

xyphic · 16 Aug 2006 at 23:27

locutus12 said:
unfortunatly the reason why that wont happen are two fold,

firstly they would be classed as employed, and even if the government said they were not it only takes one person to bring a court case against the government, and as such they would be entitled to the minimum wage, which means each job seeker could do no more than 10 hours a week without the government having to pay them more...

secondly running such a scheme would be a beurocratic nightmare, managing a work force of over a million people, it would cost huge ammounts of money.

It's a nice thought though isn't it? Having people who otherwise would be watching daytime TV out in the sunshine making our towns and cities nicer places to live?

But living in the real world, I do realise it could never happen.

Efour · 16 Aug 2006 at 23:27

Well take an unskilled bloke living with his wife, +1 kid.

They both get JSA or joint Couples benfits.
Housing benefit- THats a few 100 quid at least round my area.
Child support - its not much but its enough for the basics.
free or subsidies council tax £120 ish quid round my way a month.

Now subsidise that with the bloke doing 1 days cash in hand work for 50 quid
The missus dealing puff out of the flat.

Thats probably a hell of a lot more money than they could get doing 40 hours in some really crappy supermarket or warehouse, which in reality is as good as they are going to get.

Lopéz · 16 Aug 2006 at 23:49

M0KUJ1N said:
[satire] How about, instead of having large amounts of people sponging off the state, and large amounts of homeless people and people on disability we.....[/satire]

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!

Mad old tory · 16 Aug 2006 at 23:52

It's a sad state of affairs that the system helps those that don't need it and doesn't help those that genuinely do. It really isn't difficult to get a job of some sort, the problem was described perfectly by Telescopi, the benefits are too high and there isn't a big enough gap between benefits and lowpaid jobs. Another issue is the lack of childcare. I know there are some single parents who will simply scrounge but there are almost certainly others out there who want to work but can't afford childcare costs. How about a system where instead of benefits, parents receive childcare vouchers allowing them to work??

Raumarik · 16 Aug 2006 at 23:54

Sorry I started this then didnt get a chance to check back on it! some good eye opening posts here

For those saying it's not worth working I can see your point if people have kids etc but when I was 16 I started working full time (45hours/week) for £3000/year most of which went on work clothing, making lunch and traveling to and from work. I did it because I'd rather do that and gain experience than sit on my backside, it paid off in the long term so I don't think the "it's not worth it because it doesn't pay enough" is a reason that can always be applied.

If I was an employer I'd rather hire someone who had done a few jobs in a few years rather than sitting about waiting on the right job to come along, I'd rather have a worker than a skiver and the "I'm waiting on the right job" and "I can't find anything I like" are excuses that my MATES use far to often whilst sitting on the dole.

There are a lot of valid reasons for being unemployed I just think it's time we got tough on those who see it as a career in itself, I would force them into work and I know that wont be a very popular view!

fulcrumer · 17 Aug 2006 at 00:26

johnny6 said:
Having been on the dole I have to say the main group of people who got on my wick, were the ones who were allowed to claim the dole but couldn't speak/read/write a word of English.

How are these people supposed to go for job interviews (which you are required to do in order to carry on claiming) if they can't communicate in English.

Why are this people allowed to get away with claiming??????

'Work for those that can support for those that cannot'
They can work within their own community and receive training in ESOL. Many of the A8 (new EU member states) can not speal English but still work.

fulcrumer · 17 Aug 2006 at 00:27

Mad old tory said:
It's a sad state of affairs that the system helps those that don't need it and doesn't help those that genuinely do. It really isn't difficult to get a job of some sort, the problem was described perfectly by Telescopi, the benefits are too high and there isn't a big enough gap between benefits and lowpaid jobs. Another issue is the lack of childcare. I know there are some single parents who will simply scrounge but there are almost certainly others out there who want to work but can't afford childcare costs. How about a system where instead of benefits, parents receive childcare vouchers allowing them to work??

They get both now!!!