working for your dole......

Allnamestaken · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:26

BuffetSlayer said:
Yes but not everyone is like you. Fine, judge them if you will but using your position to make life harder for them is as reprehensible as the behaviour you condemn (imo).

Im talking about people who refuse to work because they dont want to work and be better off by 20 to 50 pounds as they see that as not enough..

Thats sheer lazyness, they refuse to work and job search and apply for work knowing they would be better off. Being 20 to 50 pounds better off working than on benefit is still better off.

I work with these people as much as I can and if they continue to refuse I will mandate them to come in all the time to do everything they possibly can aka job search referals to external training.

They dont get a free ride because they choose they dont want to do anything.

Im not talking about every single person im talking about the ****ing lazy scumbags.

wordy · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:26

There are people employed by Local Authorities to pick litter up and clean graffiti. All this will do is undercut their (barely) living wages, so when LA's are told to cut their budgets even more, the street cleaners will be made redundant, go on the dole and be told to do their old jobs for a fraction of the price.

If litter and graffiti needs cleaning up then the LA's should employ them on the same wages, with the same rights as existing employees who already do the work. But they won't they'll make staff redundant and get cheap forced labour to do it.

Our government always tries to focus our anger downwards, it should be focused the other way.

Allnamestaken · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:28

Scougar said:
I appreciate Allnamesaken's point, but think about it from their perspective. Why go to all the effort for basically next to nothing. I have friends with kids that used to work their asses off which worked out to be about £10 more than their benefits, and it pee'd them off that they put all that effort in, when other people were getting a free ride, and wondered why they should bother (Because you lose all your other benefits as well, like housing costs paid etc, so it's not just JSA).

I had (note: past tense) a friend try to convince me that I should as a uni graduate just go on the dole and sponge for a few years (She was actually doing a masters!). That attitude disgusted me, and I deliberately parted ways.

The bottom line is that the culture around the 'right' to have the state pay for you needs to change, and pride in self-supporting yourself needs to take precedence. I'm all for helping those that wish to help themselves until they can genuinely get back on their feet, although it's a balancing act between being difficult and giving enough support.

Yes but that said person is STILL better off. Also they are immedietly more employable which also means they can move onto better paying jobs within time. They just refuse to see it that way, and these specific people expect to come off and be 500 a week better off then they are. I dont even get 500 a week...... and I am on 23k a year.

atpbx · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:38

The forced labour argument is nonsense.

You don't HAVE to do it, you are perfectly free to not do anything at all if you so wish.

hurfdurf · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:40

atpbx said:
The forced labour argument is nonsense.

You don't HAVE to do it, you are perfectly free to not do anything at all if you so wish.

If there is work to be done, pay a wage for it.

hurfdurf · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:42

Allnamestaken said:
I work with people on benefits, and occasionaly I get someone who says "why should I work to be £10 better off"

I say to them for self respect and to be proud of themselves to further them selves among other things. They come back to me saying that if why should they bother for £10 as they could do nothing and get what they need now.

This honestly ****s me off, Its like I might as well take money out of my hand and give it to these runts as thats exactly whats happening via the taxes I pay.

In the end I mention to them you could stay on your benefits and decide you dont want to work even though you could be better off while working even if it is only by 20 or 30 pounds. If thats what you decide I can mandate you to attend every day 5 days a week as until you realise that being on JSA and benefits really is not a better choice.

I ****ing hate people like that.

How do the maths work out there then, what work are they being offered that's only £10 more than £50 a week for a full time job?

atpbx · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:43

hurfdurf said:
If there is work to be done, pay a wage for it.

what's that got to do with anything?

My point is nobody is being forced to do anything certainly not work against their wishes.

You are talking about another matter entirely which I have no opinion on.

Allnamestaken · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:45

hurfdurf said:
How do the maths work out there then, what work are they being offered that's only £10 more than £50 a week for a full time job?

I dont just calculate better off calculations based on JSA alone.

I calculate benefits as a whole for someone and work out the hours they would need to do to be able to be better off. In other words we find out how much they need to earn and the hours needed to be done to afford to live how they currently live or better without being on benefits.

For some people that would be part time jobs and for others full time jobs. Its different for each individual how ever for the majority they are better off. Sometimes they are only better off by a little but they are still better off.

The Geezer · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:50

The problem I have with this policy is that the government seem to be targeting the weak, vulnerable and poor for very little gain vs the effort required. The numbers are so small that they will make no difference to the public purse.

Meanwhile in the real news - Google only pays £11.5m tax in the UK on £3 billion stating that all their business leads come from the US and taxed in Ireland. They only turned over 15.5 billion euros which is slightly up from the previous year. Yes I know tax avoidance is legal and therefore we should be grateful for the £11.5m, here's an idea ban Google from all British territories and see how much they are willing to pay to do business in the UK.

If the Chancellor was serious about making savings to the public purse then stop going for the back of the herd

hurfdurf · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:52

Allnamestaken said:
I dont just calculate better off calculations based on JSA alone.

I calculate benefits as a whole for someone and work out the hours they would need to do to be able to be better off. In other words we find out how much they need to earn and the hours needed to be done to afford to live how they currently live or better without being on benefits.

For some people that would be part time jobs and for others full time jobs. Its different for each individual how ever for the majority they are better off. Sometimes they are only better off by a little but they are still better off.

The answer is to increase minimum wage then, not make being on benefits worse

wordy · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:53

The Geezer said:
The problem I have with this policy is that the government seem to be targeting the weak, vulnerable and poor for very little gain vs the effort required. The numbers are so small that they will make no difference to the public purse.

Meanwhile in the real news - Google only pays £11.5m tax in the UK on £3 billion stating that all their business leads come from the US and taxed in Ireland. They only turned over 15.5 billion euros which is slightly up from the previous year. Yes I know tax avoidance is legal and therefore we should be grateful for the £11.5m, here's an idea ban Google from all British territories and see how much they are willing to pay to do business in the UK.

If the Chancellor was serious about making savings to the public purse then stop going for the back of the herd

Yep, our government always tries to focus our anger downwards, it should be focused the other way.

Macro · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:54

deanolfc said:
Another attack on the poor lol What, Voting around the corner is it.

I find the whole proposal outraeous. Has no one thought through the implications to the independent television industry and the massive drop in Jeremy Kyle show viewing figures short sighted actions like this will cause.

This is an unforgivable attack on the long term (2 years plus) unemployed just because you are not actively in education/training or job seeking. I find the whole idea of being asked to contribute to the community in exchange for having your rent, JSA, council tax, state pension being paid for you repugnant. What kind of society is it we live in dammit!?!?!

atpbx · 1 Oct 2013 at 14:59

The Geezer said:
The problem I have with this policy is that the government seem to be targeting the weak, vulnerable and poor for very little gain vs the effort required. The numbers are so small that they will make no difference to the public purse.

Meanwhile in the real news - Google only pays £11.5m tax in the UK on £3 billion stating that all their business leads come from the US and taxed in Ireland. They only turned over 15.5 billion euros which is slightly up from the previous year. Yes I know tax avoidance is legal and therefore we should be grateful for the £11.5m, here's an idea ban Google from all British territories and see how much they are willing to pay to do business in the UK.

If the Chancellor was serious about making savings to the public purse then stop going for the back of the herd

Those figures are incorrect.
Also, disregarding that, you don't pay tax on turnover.

elmarko · 1 Oct 2013 at 15:03

Allnamestaken said:
Im talking about people who refuse to work because they dont want to work and be better off by 20 to 50 pounds as they see that as not enough..

Thats sheer lazyness, they refuse to work and job search and apply for work knowing they would be better off. Being 20 to 50 pounds better off working than on benefit is still better off.

Well, perhaps other people place a higher value on 37.5 hours on their time than you do.

Personally, I don't blame people for not wanting to work & be only slightly better off - the problem isn't lazyness, it's just that wages on the bottom are not high enough.

It's should be hardly surprising that some people find the fact that if they get a job, they will be £20 a week better off demotivating - they should be significantly better off (to ensure they are rewarded for hard work).

hurfdurf said:
The answer is to increase minimum wage then, not make being on benefits worse

Indeed, why anybody would think the solution should be to force those who already have virtually nothing into further poverty (resulting in crime, health problems which cost us more in the long-term) is beyond me.

Even people who lack the ethical insight on the matter should view JSA as what it really is now-days, a method of subduing the poorest to prevent vastly increased crime, reduced social cohesion & regular riots (which cost more than the comparative pennies JSA costs us).

Colbaker · 1 Oct 2013 at 15:03

Good idea but I can see many issues, I bet many of the long term unemployed have children who they look after now whilst still claiming JSA, when these people have to go out to work who will be looking after their kids?
Also do I want these JSA bums taking a job because they have too then flooding the job market so if god forbid myself or my wife lose our jobs and then find it very hard to find any employment thus putting us into trouble that could lead to us having to sell up as we cannot cover the mortgage.

Saying all that, why should my taxes pay for people to do nothing. Its a tricky situation and the torys are just throwing whatever policys out there they believe appeases the masses without really crunching the numbers so to speak.

Glaucus · 1 Oct 2013 at 15:07

Isn't the purposed only after 2 years, i'm all for it. If you cant get a job in two years you're doing something wrong. Probably disregarding jobs and not being flexible.
Job centre however is a joke and that needs improving drastically as well.

Allnamestaken · 1 Oct 2013 at 15:08

hurfdurf said:
The answer is to increase minimum wage then, not make being on benefits worse

I never said make benifits worse.

Im just saying there are people not willing to get off thee arse who are completely able to work. They refuse to be better off by 10 to 50 a week than they are on benefits due to sheer lazyness. At the end of the day if ur better off ur better off.

You dont get to point Z for free you start at point A. If that involves being better off only by 50 pounds your still 50 pounds up and not 50 pounds down.

I have no pitty for people like that, on the other hand there are people who genuinely cant work and I help them and guide them untill they are ready and able to work. I also work with young people and guide them into careers I dont just throw them into dead end pound land jobs to hit targets, this goes against my companys wants but at the end of the day I would rather push them into sustainment.

thep02 · 1 Oct 2013 at 15:10

Allnamestaken said:
I work with people on benefits, and occasionaly I get someone who says "why should I work to be £10 better off"

I say to them for self respect and to be proud of themselves to further them selves among other things. They come back to me saying that if why should they bother for £10 as they could do nothing and get what they need now.

This honestly ****s me off, Its like I might as well take money out of my hand and give it to these runts as thats exactly whats happening via the taxes I pay.

In the end I mention to them you could stay on your benefits and decide you dont want to work even though you could be better off while working even if it is only by 20 or 30 pounds. If thats what you decide I can mandate you to attend every day 5 days a week as until you realise that being on JSA and benefits really is not a better choice.

I ****ing hate people like that.

What about a 48 year old skilled family man he doesn't need the self respect a tenner will give him, why don't you swap positions with him you're no better than the man I made up just a tiny bit luckier, there is zero self respect in Bering a slave to marginally luckier folk than oneself, I desperately hope those dumping on the unemployed lose their jobs for a few years.

Allnamestaken · 1 Oct 2013 at 15:14

elmarko said:
Well, perhaps other people place a higher value on 37.5 hours on their time than you do.

Personally, I don't blame people for not wanting to work & be only slightly better off - the problem isn't lazyness, it's just that wages on the bottom are not high enough.

It's should be hardly surprising that some people find the fact that if they get a job, they will be £20 a week better off demotivating - they should be significantly better off (to ensure they are rewarded for hard work).

I didnt get to 23k instantly, at times I was only maybe 100 pounds or less better off then someone geting comparable benefits. Im not a bitch however, I gained experiance I have self respect and I am now on what I am.

If being only 50 pounds better off means you can be independant of benefits while also looking more employabe you should take it. Higher pay will follow in time.

To have the why bother attitude is down right wrong.

I value myself much higher then what I get now but I know I cant just walk into what I really want. It will take me time but I will get there.

TheLegendOfMart · 1 Oct 2013 at 15:14

Allnamestaken said:
I never said make benifits worse.

Im just saying there are people not willing to get off thee arse who are completely able to work. They refuse to be better off by 10 to 50 a week than they are on benefits due to sheer lazyness. At the end of the day if ur better off ur better off.

You dont get to point Z for free you start at point A. If that involves being better off only by 50 pounds your still 50 pounds up and not 50 pounds down.

So it's gone from £10 better off to £50 better off.....

I don't drive and if I get a job where I'm only £10 better off but then have to spend more than that just to get to work then I should HAVE to do it?