Should people on benefits do unpaid work?

Original post by HFBS

So someone should be made to starve or become homeless because they would rather spend that time looking for a job than work in a job the employer refuses to employ them for?

Obviously this would be introduced for those who are able-bodied and have been "looking for work" for a significant period of time.

Reply 22

HFBS

11

Original post by Jebedee

Obviously this would be introduced for those who are able-bodied and have been "looking for work" for a significant period of time.

Or maybe, if there is work to be done they could be employed to do it?

You do realise that this idea was tried, called workfare, and eventually ruled to be illegal.

Reply 23

Original post by HFBS

Or maybe, if there is work to be done they could be employed to do it?

You do realise that this idea was tried, called workfare, and eventually ruled to be illegal.

A lot of jobs are nice to be done but the powers that be don't really consider them important enough to hire someone specifically for that job. Here is where these people can come in.

It really isn't hard to get a job and the ones who complain that they've tried to and failed, have often put next to no effort in finding one. If you want a job, you will get one.

The problem is these people make zero effort to make themselves employable, think they are automatically entitled to a job and then just throw everything up in the air and say "I tried" at the first sign of rejection.

Those people should be paid of course, and the fantastic thing is they are already being paid. Let them earn it!

Reply 24

BaronK

9

Original post by Jebedee

Obviously this would be introduced for those who are able-bodied and have been "looking for work" for a significant period of time.

"Unfortunately you're taking too long to find employment and so you will now have to undertake unpaid community work or lose your benefits."

Excellent idea, let's penalise those who are looking.

Reply 25

BaronK

9

Original post by Jebedee

Those people should be paid of course, and the fantastic thing is they are already being paid. Let them earn it!

On benefits is hardly being paid. But regardless, everyone deserves some kind of income if they're out of work, the less inequality the better it is for everyone.

Reply 26

Original post by BaronK

"Unfortunately you're taking too long to find employment and so you will now have to undertake unpaid community work or lose your benefits."

Excellent idea, let's penalise those who are looking.

If you've been out of work for more than 6 months and still "looking". You are NOT LOOKING.
Do you realise how easy it is to pull wool over the eyes of your average job centre minion? They give you a booklet, you just find a list of 4 companies a fortnight and write them down, claiming to have submitted a CV and/or went for an interview and awaiting answer. The staff know the rigmarole and so do the lazy chavs.

Reply 27

Original post by BaronK

On benefits is hardly being paid. But regardless, everyone deserves some kind of income if they're out of work, the less inequality the better it is for everyone.

I'm not talking about the casual person who is literally between jobs. I mean the chronically unemployed. I don't see why your income being relative to your work as being inequality.

Reply 28

Maker

Original post by Jebedee

A lot of jobs are nice to be done but the powers that be don't really consider them important enough to hire someone specifically for that job. Here is where these people can come in.

It really isn't hard to get a job and the ones who complain that they've tried to and failed, have often put next to no effort in finding one. If you want a job, you will get one.

The problem is these people make zero effort to make themselves employable, think they are automatically entitled to a job and then just throw everything up in the air and say "I tried" at the first sign of rejection.

Those people should be paid of course, and the fantastic thing is they are already being paid. Let them earn it!

Who decides which jobs are nice but not important enough to be paid for? What criteria would you use to do that?

Reply 29

Original post by Maker

Who decides which jobs are nice but not important enough to be paid for? What criteria would you use to do that?

Whoever owns the land for which the work is for. Mostly it would be government owned property though. T'would be a good step in reducing taxes.

Most importantly though, if someone is working and only getting benefit money, it gives them a far better incentive to find a real job than just sending them money every fortnight for nothing.

Reply 30

Maker

Original post by Jebedee

Whoever owns the land for which the work is for. Mostly it would be government owned property though. T'would be a good step in reducing taxes.

Most importantly though, if someone is working and only getting benefit money, it gives them a far better incentive to find a real job than just sending them money every fortnight for nothing.

Again, what criteria would you use, you haven't given an answer?

Reply 31

Original post by Maker

Again, what criteria would you use, you haven't given an answer?

It would be at the land owner's discretion. What does it matter?

Reply 32

TimmonaPortella

21

Of course, after a reasonable period of grace. Nothing too onerous: maybe two or three short days. Just to make sure that people don't get used to getting money for nothing.

It doesn't have to be particularly productive or necessary work.

Reply 33

BaronK

9

Original post by TimmonaPortella

It doesn't have to be particularly productive or necessary work.

That sounds good if you don't think about it. But the impact on someone's morale/drive knowing you're being forced to do an unproductive job or task for the sake of it is quite damaging.

Original post by Jebedee

I don't see why your income being relative to your work as being inequality.

What?

Original post by Jebedee

If you've been out of work for more than 6 months and still "looking". You are NOT LOOKING.

Well I'm glad you know the case of 100% of jobseekers. Thank god there are no unlucky individuals or individuals who are in the wrong area or wrongly skilled. I feel better knowing it's because they aren't looking and are just being lazy and loafing.

Reply 34

Maker

Original post by Jebedee

It would be at the land owner's discretion. What does it matter?

Sounds like you haven't got a clue, do you normally say things about which you are clueless?

Reply 35

Hugs31

16

If it gives them experience and skills necessary to apply for paid jobs then yeah but people are on benefits for a wide range of different reasons so I guess you need to tailor it to the individual (in terms of what their situation is, what skills they already have) to maximize its effect.

Reply 36

Unkempt_One

13

Not everyone who's unemployed has no qualifications or experience you nitwit.

I don't see the problem with workfare for long term unemployed. If someone has been on the dole for 6 months, more often than not you can say that person has no skills or qualifications and little work experience. Whats the harm in giving them something extra to boost their CV?

That girl who got sent to Poundland was a graduate which is completely different. A university graduate with a 2.1 degree and a few years work experience is going to gain **** all from something like that.

Reply 38

NHM

11

I think some should but not all... My mum for example she's well educated, degree from Warwick.. Part time prosecutor due to having a baby... Doesn't mean she should have to work in the community because she's getting paid less for having a baby? She has to claim some benefits...

Reply 39

Bang Outta Order