working for your dole......

What is the difference between this and labours guaranteed unnecessary job funded by the taxpayer policy?
 
twoblacklines said:
One thing to remember in context of private companies and work camps: A task is not going to get done as well (or even done properly) by someone being forced to work there, as it is by someone who you employ.
Click to expand...

It will because those who take part in the scheme will be doing so to hold onto their benefits/livelihood, probably professionals who can't find work due to the state of the economy.

The kind of people who people in this thread are frothing at the mouth to punish are likely to just tell the job centre to shove it and resort to criminality etc.

twoblacklines said:
Why should a private company pay someone who doesn't want to be there and therefore is going to be slack at his/her job the same amount of money as someone who does?
Click to expand...

Because of minimum wage laws which protect workers from exploitation.
 
nick.lidgett said:
its not forced labour though, you just wont get your benefits.
I also never said all job seekers were chavs either.
did you even read the whole thread, including my thoughts on various points that have been made?
its not a conservative party thing either, its a get long term claimants off their backside and do something worth while, instead of just sitting back taking everything they can get, the benefit system is one of the factors that's dragging our economy through the gutter and something has got to give.
Click to expand...

So you are in favour of taking away the vital safety net, and then what, what happens to the people who refuse to work for pittance? Do we let them starve or freeze to death?

And how much of a factor do you think the benefits system was compared to the other factors that ruined the economy?
 
I love these threads, the amount of people who forget that its not just jobseekers, but rent+council tax that they are claiming is staggering. Of course 30 hour (if thats even accurate) work is fair. In the south at least the jsa + housing costs can be far over minimum wage.
 
Glaucus said:
You don't need a grand
Click to expand...

It cost me £1400 to move from one rented house to another less than a mile away, to be on my kids school journey, where is an unemployed person going to get that?

Unemployed people are you with a slight change of circumstances, I'd be all into giving them driving lessons or valuable skills but churning out slaves who sweep up or dredge canals or stock shelves is crass in the extreme IMHO it is based upon a carefully nurtured false impression of life on the dole, the people you want to get off their bums aren't gonna be affected because in reality they are criminals who have a separate income to their dole.
 
thep02 said:
Unemployed people are you with a slight change of circumstances, .
Click to expand...

Unlikely, i would get another job.
Get on freecycle and get your self a bike, that increases your range and is free.

Theres several grants and things available for jsa for moving house.
The scheme is after two years, thats more than enough time for people to find a job, if they haven't found a job i n two years, its unlikely they will.
 
the way I understand it is this,

the government are targeting the long term claimants, the lazy ones that sit back and take what they can, never make a real effort to find employment because they are happy living on what the benefit system provides them. They are targeting the people who are to stupid to work because they wasted their years of free education, they are targeting the drug addicts and alcoholics who would rather use their benefit money to get wasted.

The government is suggesting, that instead of these people sitting at home getting cash, rent, council tax, prescriptions and other benefits for nothing, they try and do something constructive and meaningful to get them.

The first step is to get everybody into the job centre and find out what help they need to find work. Once there they will help the healthy, but lazy, claimants with their C.Vs and take a more active role in helping them find work etc etc. It has also been said they will help to educate the stupid and take a more vigorous approach in the treatment of the addicts.

The second step for the healthy but lazy claimants, if the first step didn't work is to send them out to work for their local authorities, carrying out unskilled work like litter picking and graffiti removal.

The second step for the stupid would be to try and find them work, but now they wouldn't be as stupid, and should be able to hold down an unskilled job, again if this failed the next step would be to send them out to work for their local authorities, carrying out unskilled work like litter picking and graffiti removal.

The addicts would receive their support and would probably go down the same route as the stupid ones did.

Some claimants may not have to go out to work, they may be offered a chance to earn their benefits by staying at the job centre.

Am I wrong about any of this?


People wont just be sent straight out to work for the government, they will get the chance to find their own jobs, educate themselves and try to kick whatever addiction they have first.

They will be asked to spend 30 hours a week doing these things in order to "give back" to the society that has looked after them and provided so well for them for so many years.

Instead of wages they will continue to receive all their benefits that add up to quite a bit, if they fail or refuse to do anything to give back, they will lose their benefits.

Like I said this is how I understand it, if im wrong please tell me where and how.
If this scheme ever comes to light and is implemented fairly I cant see a problem with this.
Not only will it help these people get some self respect, learn the importance of paying their way and into the habit of work, it will also show potential employers they are prepared to work, learn and be useful members of society.
 
FoxEye said:
If you honestly think this scheme (and other forced labour schemes) don't do any harm, then frankly you're not thinking very hard.

Forced labour devalues that work, takes a job that somebody would be paid for, and reduces the salary to 0.

And if you think that jobseekers are all chavs who don't want to work, you're totally wrong.

This is why we NEED the Tories OUT. They exist for one reason and one reason only: to benefit the upper echelons of society while treading on, exploiting, and destroying the quality of life of those at the bottom.

The Tories = the Lords and Landowners of medieval society, and everbody who isn't their mate is a peasant.

The Tories will destroy society, plain and simple, whilst giving tax breaks to huge corporations and spending money on duck pond houses.
Click to expand...

This^^^ of course it's forced labour.. haven't we covered all this here...

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18487743
 
My experience with dole was a load of crap, signed on during uni ending and finding a job.

Once i found a job and showed them signed contract they told me i had to keep looking for work until the day my job started otherwise i don't get paid.

So i was meant to apply for other jobs (Potentially risking my proposed one if word came out) just in case it happened to fall through or something..
 
twoblacklines said:
How do you think huge corporations got there in the first place? Decades of hard graft is how.
Click to expand...

Hard graft? Sure, I agree.

I watched a expose where Indian workers did 18 hour shifts in a factory making clothes for GAP. Hard work, indeed.

They paid those workers £2 a day. So yes, corporations do indeed make profit through hard work!

Let's not forget the Tories are the party who want to scrap the minimum wage. It's well documented that many Tories feel the minimum wage hurts the economy.

Being able to pay £2 a day for 18 hours hard labour is a Tories wet dream.
 
nick.lidgett said:
LMFAO for real??? this has to be bait
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm happy that people don't spend a life on benefits (who are able to work) but there also needs to be the conditions where they can get a job and afford to live on a basic wage. There should be a notable difference between being on benefits and earning a basic wage that someone can live on.

Unless we are happy about tossing people on the street and the consequences of that.
 
oldbag said:
They should double the minimum wage and get a better education system first.
Click to expand...

problem there is everything gets dramatically more expensive for everyone especially those not on minimum wage, so they all need equal pay rises too, or they all lose out.
 
Tefal said:
problem there is everything gets dramatically more expensive for everyone especially those not on minimum wage, so they all need equal pay rises too, or they all lose out.
Click to expand...
Well, that's totally dependent on how much as a percentage of expenses wages for the lower earners make up as a proportion of total expenditure (for a given business).

Obviously the distribution would need to be balanced (reduction at the top & for shareholders) with a greater increase in the share of the rewards for the labour done, but it's not a mathematically unsound premise at all, it just requires a few conditions or an economic restructure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom