[Ham22]

(Original post by For The Love Of Giraffe)
That sounds heavenly - wish I could get paid to read or walk about...
Even though three days is more than required, do you not feel bad not contributing to society or finding a way to, while receiving money for those four days of leisure as well? I know that if I didn't have a job and wasn't studying, I'd see benefits as a priviledge and would search for a job every day - only when I'm earning money myself would I take time out to have breaks for fun.

The man is not a machine. It would also be pointless to be searching for a job like it was an actual job- i.e. 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Job vacancies are not flooding in/becoming available at that rate. Just because you are resentful of the fact that you have to work and yes, having a lot of leisure time to do what you want (taking into account the very small income you get on JSA) is a nicer existence than having a full-time job, doesn't mean that job seekers should be forced to undertake activities which are excessive and totally pointless, just to mitigate your jealousy and resentment. This is YOUR PROBLEM, not any JSA claimant's.

And I very much doubt you would be looking for a job every waking minute either, not allowing yourself any 'fun'. What hogwash.

[Ham22]

(Original post by jess-star18990)
Its a good idea!! Not only do these people get JSA, they get housing benefit and council tax benefit!! They also get free dental care and free prescriptions.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

YEH! *AIR PUNCH*

The more homeless people i see on the street broken and depressed, the more i smile and rub my hands with glee.

[RyanT]

(Original post by Cybele)
If they're earning £60 a week then they should HAVE to do some work imo, even if it's only 8-10 hours a week or something.

Er, I pay taxes so that I get my money back if I get made unemployed.

You're forgetting the bit where many of the unemployed were working before and paying the taxes to cover the risk of them being made unemployed in the future.

[ArcadiaHouse]

(Original post by Algorithm69)
You only spend three days per week looking for a job? What are you doing for the other four days on the taxpayers' dime?

I think you're on the wrong side of the Atlantic.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by GossipGirl86)
To the PP who was shocked to hear someone searching for a job ONLY three days a week - have you actually tried looking for a job yourself while on dole? I was out of work for almost 6 months after finishing college, I looked for and applied for as many jobs as possible. It gets SERIOUSLY demoralising and ends up with the person feeling like total crap and so low.

That was about 7 years ago now and I've worked non stop since then, I couldn't go back to searching for a job everyday and signing on fortnightly and I hope I never have to.

Most people in this country do want to work thankfully but there will always be the lazy bastards who just want to sit on their arse all day.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

When I didn't have a job I just fell into feeling depressed.

I mean your CV has to be you saying how amazing you are, but I'm not a boastful person. Then you have this nagging feeling that you're not good enough, which is re-enforced by not managing to get a job.

It starts to feel more and more like a problem with you, rather than the times.
Looking for a job doesn't get rid of the problem and soon it becomes more than a job, it becomes part of your eombidment of being unemployed.

[Steevee]

(Original post by Martyn*)
http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/07/03/la...r-three-years/

This will be open to abuse.

I already know of one person who had his benefits stopped (although not for three years but for one month) because he was not doing enough to look for work. The man in question did not fail to attend any of his appointments, but believed that it was pointless looking for jobs that were not there, and failed to fill-in his job application tracker with jobs he applied for.

Yesterday my right-wing A4E advisor sternly warned me that the rate at which I was applying for jobs has decreased over the months and said I must try harder or face sanctions. I spend 3 days per week at that place looking for jobs and applying for them. And talking about politics is off the cards.

In my view, right wing Tories seem to be kicking the wrong people. Unemployed people are already having a tough time, and these Tories would prefer to see them shackled to a rock and whipped if they don't do as they are told.

You're unemployed?

Bet it's those damn Illuminati telling everyone not to give you a job because you're on to them

[james22]

(Original post by madders94)
People can't help not being able to find a job when there are no jobs going, why should they have to do "unpleasant" work because the government's actions have caused a lack of jobs?

Some people have suggested that people on benefits do these unpleasant jobs, 9-5 six days a week and not get any extra money - just for their benefits. If we say that people on JSA get £60 a week, I think that's the equivalent of them earning £1.25 an hour - on what planet is that ethical?

I said they should have time to look for jobs and live a bit, so the amount of time they should be doing this work would be full time-time allocated for job hunting at the moment, this gives them time to look for jobs and the weekends off to relax or hopefully look for jobs.

I know people cannot help being able to find a job a lot of the time (esspecailly now) but that doesn't mean they should expect free money. I'm just saying they should have to do some work to earn there benifits. i think minimum wage should be ignored in this case as they don't really have a job.

I hold strongly the opinion that baeggers can't be chosers, if they want benifits they should have to work for them, after all if they weren't on benifits they would have to work fotr there money so this would be a good insentive to find a proper job.

[funsongfactory]

(Original post by For The Love Of Giraffe)
People who actually work and get no free money to work have less time than these jobseekers have for fun - on what planet is that fair? It's not patronising to think that is wrong.

Totally agree!

[BoxesAndBangles]

To be fair, if the OP lives in a small town, there might not be new jobs everyday to spend 7 days searching.

[NietzschanGuy]

(Original post by GossipGirl86)
To the PP who was shocked to hear someone searching for a job ONLY three days a week - have you actually tried looking for a job yourself while on dole? I was out of work for almost 6 months after finishing college, I looked for and applied for as many jobs as possible. It gets SERIOUSLY demoralising and ends up with the person feeling like total crap and so low.

That was about 7 years ago now and I've worked non stop since then, I couldn't go back to searching for a job everyday and signing on fortnightly and I hope I never have to.

Most people in this country do want to work thankfully but there will always be the lazy bastards who just want to sit on their arse all day.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I share these sentiments. Having finally secured a job last month, the thing I most dread in the world would be to have to live on benefits and the jobcentre again. I don't understand how anyone could enjoy such a lifestyle, or even tolerate it. Whatever else it was, it didn't feel like an easy ride to me.

[Harry Callahan]

(Original post by madders94)
The patronising attitudes in this thread are astounding. "You're ONLY looking for work three days of the week? How do you think the poor taxpayer feels that you're HAVING A LIFE whilst using their money, you naughty person?".

Why should taxpayers pay for those not working to enjoy themselves, when many taxpayers can't themselves afford to enjoy themselves?

[madders94]

(Original post by james22)
I said they should have time to look for jobs and live a bit, so the amount of time they should be doing this work would be full time-time allocated for job hunting at the moment, this gives them time to look for jobs and the weekends off to relax or hopefully look for jobs.

I know people cannot help being able to find a job a lot of the time (esspecailly now) but that doesn't mean they should expect free money. I'm just saying they should have to do some work to earn there benifits. i think minimum wage should be ignored in this case as they don't really have a job.

I hold strongly the opinion that baeggers can't be chosers, if they want benifits they should have to work for them, after all if they weren't on benifits they would have to work fotr there money so this would be a good insentive to find a proper job.

It was more the fact that you specified "unpleasant" work; I'm not sure why it should be unpleasant. Also, what good are incentives when there aren't enough jobs?

[magicmuggle]

All the people complaining about benefits in this thread - would you rather these people were left homeless and peniless? What about the long term unemployed? It's easy to say that there are jobs out there, but there aren't always. And looking for jobs seven days a week is demoralising and I can't imagine many people keeping it up over an extended time period.

Benefits are meant to be a lifeline. I can't imagine many people taking them willingly over a job, especially as the amount hardly funds a great lifestyle.

[DudeRugs]

(Original post by Harry Callahan)
Why should taxpayers pay for those not working to enjoy themselves, when many taxpayers can't themselves afford to enjoy themselves?

So with a minimum wage job you get £250 a week, lets say £200 a week. With no job you get £55 a week. The person earning £200 a week can't afford to enjoy themselves while a person getting £55 a week can?

[A Mysterious Lord]

A4E are a bunch of condescending little Hitlers. That said, if jobseekers don't fulfil their jobseeker's agreement then sanctions should apply. That's just how it goes.

[INTit]

(Original post by james22)
I said they should have time to look for jobs and live a bit, so the amount of time they should be doing this work would be full time-time allocated for job hunting at the moment, this gives them time to look for jobs and the weekends off to relax or hopefully look for jobs.

I know people cannot help being able to find a job a lot of the time (esspecailly now) but that doesn't mean they should expect free money. I'm just saying they should have to do some work to earn there benifits. i think minimum wage should be ignored in this case as they don't really have a job.

I hold strongly the opinion that baeggers can't be chosers, if they want benifits they should have to work for them, after all if they weren't on benifits they would have to work fotr there money so this would be a good insentive to find
a proper job.

I wouldn't be surprised if the politicians are actively trying to encourage this "them" and "us" mentality. Turning the unemployed into the enemy and punishing them with menial work for a laughable allowance is a great PR move as everybody loves to see the enemy get punished.

People need to realize that unemployed people aren't an enemy that needs punishment as there's a good chance you will be one of them in the future.

[Catchetat]

I think that it is the way to go. at least it does something to get people into work. unfortunately i think there are quite a few on my street as i see their cars parked by the roads every, smoking day and night, with babies by their side. it is quite a depressing scene.

but the problem is identifying those who are actually seeking work and those who don't. does anyone know how the state finds that out?

[marcusfox]

(Original post by Martyn*)
http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/07/03/la...r-three-years/

This will be open to abuse.

I already know of one person who had his benefits stopped (although not for three years but for one month) because he was not doing enough to look for work. The man in question did not fail to attend any of his appointments, but believed that it was pointless looking for jobs that were not there, and failed to fill-in his job application tracker with jobs he applied for.

Yesterday my right-wing A4E advisor sternly warned me that the rate at which I was applying for jobs has decreased over the months and said I must try harder or face sanctions. I spend 3 days per week at that place looking for jobs and applying for them. And talking about politics is off the cards.

In my view, right wing Tories seem to be kicking the wrong people. Unemployed people are already having a tough time, and these Tories would prefer to see them shackled to a rock and whipped if they don't do as they are told.

You know, I accept that the total number of unemployed people exceed the number of job vacancies.

But it's very very simple. There are *always* going to be job vacancies. So to keep your JSA and stop getting sanctioned, the answer is - just keep on applying for these jobs.

You don't have to get a job, you just have to keep applying for them.

Until there are absolutely zero job vacancies at the local jobcentre, it's enough to keep on putting in those applications.

If you are able and relying on state benefits, it's not too much to ask that you do that.

[Shomberlon]

(Original post by RyanT)
Er, I pay taxes so that I get my money back if I get made unemployed.

You're forgetting the bit where many of the unemployed were working before and paying the taxes to cover the risk of them being made unemployed in the future.

You forget most people on this forum are students so that idea hasn't event entered their brain. I worked for 12 years paying my taxes and now I don't even get enough to pay all the bills, when I start uni in sept, a lot of my student loan will go towards paying my bills that I've not been able to yet. I really hope all these kids who think its an easy life on JSA never have to experience it.

Basically if you've never had to use JSA then really you can't comment because you don't know what its like and how hard things can be.

[Ham22]

This three year sanction clause for lack of effort is nothing new btw.