Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    What you're saying may well be true, but what about Prisoners forced to do community service work?
    Article 29.(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronK)
    Compulsory unpaid work eh. Sounds like a terrible idea
    It isn't compulsory, you can always forfeit your benefits.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    It isn't compulsory, you can always forfeit your benefits.
    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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Personally no, I don't think all people on benefits should be made to do unpaid work.

    My dad was in the air force. He passed away in 2004 and we've been receiving support ever since. That would be classed as a form of benefit. What you'd be suggesting is that because my dad died my mum should have to earn that support? Hell no.

    People who have no interest in getting jobs and just sponge off benefits on the other hand is a different matter. If you're receiving jobseekers for example but are actively looking for work then you're doing it right. If you're lazing around doing the bare minimum then you should have to do some sort of service to earn your benefit. At which point what you effectively have is a job. But it's a lot of hassle to differentiate those who deserve it and those who don't.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ihatePE)
    by people on benefits i mean people who are not disabled but are either lacking education qualifications or can't find work. so just like community service, they should give back to community by doing unpaid work, in doing so they are also gaining skills progressively. what do you think?

    im revising for my RE exam and the topic is the poor in britain and one of the point was this and i thought it's a noice idea so why havent anyone implemented it?
    Not everyone who's unemployed has no qualifications or experience you nitwit.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.