Should people on benefits do unpaid work?

Scroll to see replies

Ok well specify on here and in your paper laddy

Making people do unpaid work is not civilised. In any case you don't seem to realise that your original idea is already implemented in lots of different areas. It's already pretty common for people to do voluntary work for charities and such to help boost their image. On the other hand, a lot of people on benefits are well qualified and just furiously searching for jobs in dry local labour markets. You need to gain some perspective.

Reply 42

_icecream

And what are we going to do with them? Clean at Tescos?
In the real world my friend, these people would 99% of times get exploited by their so called new employers where they will be working as slaves for their masters.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 43

Serine Soul

Might as well send them to workhouses right?

Reply 44

MrControversial

It is a complicated subject. Some would call it slavery but there is more to it than that.

In society people need to work towards to end. For basic survival and to advance.

Farming techniques and other systems mean that actually we all need to work a tiny amount to maintain the status quo. Perhaps one day a week.

Still some people must work and you want something more than the bear minimum so to progress. This is tricky. Who do you make work? People who don't work are a drag on society. Right now who we make everyone work so people live under wage slavery.

People work more now than at many points in history due to a capitalist consumerist society with a heavy protestent influence on work ethic.

The shame of it is that much of this extra work does not result in true progress. It tends to be wasteful work for the sake of work as a way I guess to choose how to spread the wealth.

Anyway for fairness sake it is considered that everyone must at least cover themselves and not leach on society.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 45

anarchism101

That would be paid work, thus entitling them to all the rights of employment, including minimum wage.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 46

difeo

Original post by unprinted

Only if they're paid minimum wage, i.e. typically considerably more than unemployment benefits.

Depends how many hours they work doesn't it...

Reply 47

dragonkeeper999

Everyone's already pointed out the major problems with this idea, but I do think there should be an optional program help those'cronically unemployed', perhaps with an additional financial incentive. I've found work experience to be a great way to find out about potential careers, network with future employers, gain new skills, motivate me to work hard in the future, etc. Many people who are really struggling to get a job lose motivation/ confidence, and are faced with the 'previous experience reqtired' issue when applying for jobs.
I also think there should be more done in terms of providing the unemployed with study opportunities if they want to go into a career requiring certain qualifications.

Reply 48

TimmonaPortella

Original post by anarchism101

That would be paid work, thus entitling them to all the rights of employment, including minimum wage.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Unless you base this on legislation that says it isn't, and they're not...

Reply 49

Tiger Rag

Original post by anarchism101

That would be paid work, thus entitling them to all the rights of employment, including minimum wage.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Exactly

You also wouldn't be allowed to offer them "work experience" and sack someone doing the same job, paid.

Reply 50

unprinted

Original post by difeo

Depends how many hours they work doesn't it...

'People' who think this is a good idea typically want the equivalent of a full time job's work.

Reply 51

username878267

Original post by Galaxie501

What you're saying may well be true, but what about Prisoners forced to do community service work?

That comes under a lawful (reasonable) sanction.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 52

Maid Marian

No. You can't make people work for less than the minimum wage.

Reply 53

RF_PineMarten

Original post by WBZ144

They won't be forced, they will be volunteering in exchange for their benefits the same way everyone works in exchange for their salaries.

That is forced. They would be being forced to do something under threat of destitution. You're forcing people against their will to work for a safety net which they are supposed to be entitled to anyway. That's kind of the whole point of a safety net. This has been proposed before, and the hour requirements for those proposals meant that people would be "working" for a fraction of the minimum wage.

This whole idea is nothing more than a forced labour scheme, no matter how people try to dress it up. Unless of course you significantly increased benefits so the scheme was in line with the minimum wage. But there are other problems with it as well, such as undercutting those who already do that job and are paid for it - if businesses can get free labour from the welfare system, they'll go for that instead of paid staff where possible.

Reply 54

username1204031

It depends. If they can't work (ie they're on disability benefits) then absolutely not.

If they can work and they're just unemployed, which is what you probably mean, I think it's a possibility. Right now we expect people to spend some ridiculous amount of hours looking for a job to receive their benefits. It gets to a point where it's not worth the time. If you've been rejected for 100 jobs, you're not going to get the 101st, and if you can't find a job then it's not going to change. We should be doing more to give the unemployed more skills and more experience so they're more appealing candidates and more suitable for more jobs.

One problem is that, unless you're going to make new jobs, you'll be putting people out of work. Councils pay people to water the flowers, clean the streets, and so on. If you're going to allocate those jobs to people on benefits instead, you're making more people unemployed. Community service works because there aren't that many people doing it. If you suddenly have all 900,000 people on JSA looking for unpaid work, where do they get it? Although it'd be brilliant to get people volunteering for charities and the like.

It also needs to be balanced and flexible. I think people should still be left enough time to a) look for paid work and b) independently better themselves through night classes or whatever else. The second point is hard though, because most people wouldn't bother with that.

Overall, though, I think it's a good idea.

Reply 55

A Mysterious Lord

If there's work to be done, pay the going rate.

Reply 56

Jazzyboy

If they can get out of bed and make themselves a cup of tea, they should have to do at least 9-10 hours of work a week. I think that's entirely reasonable, and they should be allowed to do whatever work they want to cover those hours. We don't need to make them work just to earn their benefits. We need to make them work so that they become motivated to keep trying to work. I know (/of) far too many people who are mildly disabled, or who can't walk about much, but they can still work if they tried; but they just refuse to and sit at home on benefits because they can and because they're too used to not working.

Reply 57

username457532

Original post by Jazzyboy

You have no idea about disability. I can do things like make myself a meal, shower, go food shopping etc. but it takes huge amounts of effort. But I can also do these things because I don't have anything else I need to do. Many disabled people can do the every day things that abled people take for granted purely because there's no other things that would suck away their energy. I tried working part time - I went from coping to severely suicidal in less than a week. I couldn't do things like cook a meal because every bit of energy I had needed to be saved for working. Being able to 'get out of bed and make a cup of tea' is not the threshold for being able to have a job.