working for your dole......

Ok so raise the bar to 6 months, if anybody cant find a job in 6 months, then imho there can be absolutely no excuse. In 6 months you should be able to find a job, it might not be the job you like or the job youre qualified for but its a job.
 
Phemo said:
Don't forget that on JSA you get your rent and council tax paid for you too. That amounts to quite a lot more than £45 a week.
Click to expand...

AHAHAHAHAHA.

Clearly not been a young person on JSA then.

I was on it for 6 months ending about two years ago. It wasn't £45 a week for me then im pretty damn sure, it was like 50 per two weeks. And there was NO mention of extra money coming to me for rent / council tax / anything else.

You're just taking your own opinion of "everyone one benefits is a benefit fraud" and applying it, i'd bet.



EDIT: I was wrong to post in this thread, i've seen some of the backward ignorance that everyone on JSA is lazy after rereading. People who have never been out of work, or had to go on JSA just projecting their views.
I'm lucky i'm in the south, but there's places in the UK where there is LITERALLY no work going for a lot of the people on JSA.
I have friends and family who cannot find work, who get an interview in 1 out of 150 or more applications (which at that point are not tailored for the company at hand, because **** you if you believe its easy to make 150 cover letters etc), and then wont get the job because they've never had a job, have minimal qualifications, and have been out of work / education for 4 - 5 years.

If you're willing to employ my friends / family members without experience, references, skills etc, to do a job, 100% guaranteed job. They will do just about anything, you can't just label them all as lazy.
 
Last edited:
anderp said:
This.

Also in Blurton (Stoke) a woman was getting over £20k for having a load of kids. I'm sorry but this is exactly what dole isn't for in my eyes. It's to help people who get made redundant or are struggling to get into work in the first place.
Click to expand...

I do agree. Kids should be paid for by the parents. If you can't afford em, don't have em!

That would stop the stupid people from breeding. Also fixes the problem of overpopulation in the whole world.

And yes, I know, pensions and society are based on increasing population, but it is not sustainable.
 
nick.lidgett said:
Ok so raise the bar to 6 months, if anybody cant find a job in 6 months, then imho there can be absolutely no excuse. In 6 months you should be able to find a job, it might not be the job you like or the job youre qualified for but its a job.
Click to expand...
Genuine question, what if the person applying for the jobs is very poorly educated with poor social skills (trying, but is consistently the worst candidate, ergo doesn't get the job)?.

If every single area has say 500 very poor candidates, is it not reasonable to assume that those same 500 people would never get the jobs (with the more skilled people jumping in & out of the job-centre as they actually get the jobs) - would this eventually not lead to long term unemployment? (regardless as to how much effort is put in) - additionally, would this problem be solved by forcing these people into unpaid work?.

Make said:
I do agree. Kids should be paid for by the parents. If you can't afford em, don't have em!

That would stop the stupid people from breeding. Also fixes the problem of overpopulation in the whole world.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it wouldn't.

All it would really achieve is a massive hike in child poverty, the price for which would become apparent once those young children grow into criminals or people reliant on our mental & physical care facilities.

You can't cut in one area & ignore the economic impact on the wider system (when the same entity, the tax payer) covers the cost for both.
 
Last edited:
Make said:
That would stop the stupid people from breeding. Also fixes the problem of overpopulation in the whole world.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't. They'd carry on, the only difference being a child would end up being born into a situation where there is insufficient funding and they'll suffer for it. This is not the way to solve that problem.
 
I lost my job 4 years ago, took me 2 days to find work and that was the bottom of the bottom, working in a pizza shop for minimum wage I was there 2 months till something came along, didn't want to sign on and get in the rut of not working. There are jobs out there, people are too lazy and would prefer to stay indoors living of other peoples taxes, smoke watch skytv and have rent and other bills paid. Once you get into this cycle its hard to break. Its called been lazy. Life is about living and without a job its not possible.

Gets me people moaning about foreign workers taking all our jobs, ermmm I think not!!! Get off your back side make an effort to look for work and you will get a job!!! Its easy.
 
There is something in this ideas, but you can guarentee they will execute it all wrong. These are jobs that would normally be paid minimum wage or done by criminals on community service.

There should be a small "top up" on their job seekers for taking them on as an insentive and additional help to lead to full time employment. If not it just looks like councils taking advantage to get their dirty work done.
 
Wasn't this made illegal when they tried to do this recently? (With a work scheme the gov tried).

You don't want to be hampering people from getting jobs by making them work all the time for pittance. £45 whilst working a week is nothing, and once lunches and transport is taking into account, will probably be in minus figures. I don't like scroungers but this doesn't seem quite right.

If there was to be labour involved, then the jobs that should be undertaken are the one's that will rarely be financed or outsourced by local government, or voluntary activities.
 
Last edited:
Am I missing something here?? And do I understand how it works?

So some people will be required to do a full 37.5 week before they receive their JSA, 70 ish quid a week (so about £1.9 an hour) I thought we had a minimum wage in this country of £6 odd?

Why is it that that all these companies can find positions for this cheap labour, yet can't don't advertise any such positions at the going rate?? Do the government "pay" these companies to use these people? If so does that not cost us more money, not only do we pay out JSA but also money to the so called employers to create the positions? Sounds more like sneaky way of creating cheap subsidised labour for the businesses. Or do the companies create these positions for free and just use the free labour?

Sounds to me like businesses profiting from the rise in the unemployed.

If these placements offered a "real job" at the end it may be worthwhile, but it doesn't sound like that's what the scheme is about at all. Surely, with companies creating positions for the unemployed and using them, it must mean that they create fewer if any real employment opportunities?
 
Last edited:
MookJong said:
There is something in this ideas, but you can guarentee they will execute it all wrong. These are jobs that would normally be paid minimum wage or done by criminals on community service.

There should be a small "top up" on their job seekers for taking them on as an insentive and additional help to lead to full time employment. If not it just looks like councils taking advantage to get their dirty work done.
Click to expand...

This imo.

As long as there's a top up to ensure that they are actually get a decent amount, then it's OK.

There is no incentive in getting the same money, but a nice bit of extra may start them thinking "eh! This ain't bad, I could do with a few more paydays like this" Then they will feel it harder when they go to back to their usual dole money and it may persuade them to start job hunting a bit more meaningfully.
 
Locky said:
You're effectively working 30 hours a week for 45 quids worth of JSA.
Click to expand...

If someone cannot get a real job, then this is the next best thing. I don't see why the tax payer should be expected to pay for people to be idle, and we certainly cannot afford to pay them minimum wage to do small jobs.

Get them cleaning the streets and such. Grand!
 
If there it's work for them to do it should be done by paid staff. Reducing unemployment.
 
elmarko said:
Genuine question, what if the person applying for the jobs is very poorly educated with poor social skills (trying, but is consistently the worst candidate, ergo doesn't get the job)?.

If every single area has say 500 very poor candidates, is it not reasonable to assume that those same 500 people would never get the jobs (with the more skilled people jumping in & out of the job-centre as they actually get the jobs) - would this eventually not lead to long term unemployment? (regardless as to how much effort is put in) - additionally, would this problem be solved by forcing these people into unpaid work?.

Unfortunately it wouldn't.

All it would really achieve is a massive hike in child poverty, the price for which would become apparent once those young children grow into criminals or people reliant on our mental & physical care facilities.

You can't cut in one area & ignore the economic impact on the wider system (when the same entity, the tax payer) covers the cost for both.
Click to expand...



Look, im not sure about how you can filter out the lazy from the unlucky, I suggested a time limited for claimants to find employment, obviously its not the best idea and should probably factor in other criteria like you have mentioned.
Beyond government work centres for the completely unemployable (which I dont agree with), I guess we just have to keep paying for them.
 
my question is simple, how does forcing a person to spend all week picking up litter, help them to find a job? other than by shaming them into taking any job just to get off the stupid programme? what other requirements will there be? you have to stay in work for at least a year, or go right back to litter picking?
 
Thompson_NCL said:
If someone cannot get a real job, then this is the next best thing. I don't see why the tax payer should be expected to pay for people to be idle, and we certainly cannot afford to pay them minimum wage to do small jobs.

Get them cleaning the streets and such. Grand!
Click to expand...

We are not paying them to be idle, we are paying them so they can survive while looking for work. Yes some people buck the system, but that is never going to change.
 
pokerking said:
I lost my job 4 years ago, took me 2 days to find work and that was the bottom of the bottom, working in a pizza shop for minimum wage I was there 2 months till something came along, didn't want to sign on and get in the rut of not working. There are jobs out there, people are too lazy and would prefer to stay indoors living of other peoples taxes, smoke watch skytv and have rent and other bills paid. Once you get into this cycle its hard to break. Its called been lazy. Life is about living and without a job its not possible.

Gets me people moaning about foreign workers taking all our jobs, ermmm I think not!!! Get off your back side make an effort to look for work and you will get a job!!! Its easy.
Click to expand...

Circumstances are different for everyone. Where there were basic jobs available for you when you happened to fall on hard times, there are many on these boards where no such jobs existed when they were in the same place. I will make this point incredibly clear to you so as not to be misunderstood: it is not always about motivation. Circumstance and luck will often be at work too.

Compare someone in their 30s being made redundant now, to a non-experienced school-leaver in 2007. It is not like for like, either.

To call someone lazy when they're a victim of circumstance is an awful, myopic thing to do.
 
However, this does re-affirm my opinion that IDS is the worst work and pensions secretary ever to disgrace the corridors of Whitehall.

He just churns out draconian idea after draconian idea. He must get up each morning wondering who to pick on next. First the disabled, now the jobless. Who next, those lazy OAP's who sit doing nothing in their care home all day? Get them a broom and send em out!
 
This is probably just another stupid scheme to allow the government to frig the unemployment stats.

But aside from that, if you're working, you should be entitled to minimum wage.
 
Ceryndrion said:
my question is simple, how does forcing a person to spend all week picking up litter, help them to find a job? other than by shaming them into taking any job just to get off the stupid programme? what other requirements will there be? you have to stay in work for at least a year, or go right back to litter picking?
Click to expand...

I think at the very least it will go some way to helping them understand that you have to give to receive and not just sit back and take.

If this scheme was implemented properly, fairly and cost effectively how much better would this country be for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom