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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If there's work to be done, pay the going rate.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 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.
    yeah so many people on this thread think i am talking about those who absolutely cant work for justified reasons, but i am on about really those people who have nothing better to do all day. working gives people a sense of dignity and i just cant imagine sitting home all day doing nothing. it does get to your head and make you a bit mental
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    As long as it's gender blind and not just men and boys working outdoors in all weather's.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Sounds like you haven't got a clue, do you normally say things about which you are clueless?
    I just don't see your question as relevant, and by the fact you haven't clarified so when asked, you don't seem to either.

    (Original post by BaronK)

    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.
    Define lucky. If you've been unemployed for more than 6 months it is not unlucky. It is lack of trying. If you can't find work to match your skills then find unskilled work to hold you over while you search.

    There are people who make do in countries without generous welfare systems and they don't complain so there is zero excuse not to get by in the UK nanny state.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    I just don't see your question as relevant, and by the fact you haven't clarified so when asked, you don't seem to either.


    .
    I asked which criteria you would use to determine what sorts of jobs are not really worth paying for but could be done by the unemployed but got no credible answers.

    This says to me you either have no idea what the criteria are thus clueless in this case or you do but don't want to say because it reflects badly on you. Which one is it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I asked which criteria you would use to determine what sorts of jobs are not really worth paying for but could be done by the unemployed but got no credible answers.

    This says to me you either have no idea what the criteria are thus clueless in this case or you do but don't want to say because it reflects badly on you. Which one is it?
    I wouldn't determine anything because I don't own any land or property in the UK. But whoever does can decide whether the job is important enough to employ someone with a living wage to do full time, or to submit that vacancy to the DWP so they can use that vacancy for one of their long term unemployed.

    Not every landowner has a million pound in the bank, many have mortgages and non paying tenants (due to ridiculous government red tape preventing rent money going straight to landlords). Letting the lazy work for their benefits makes the place look cleaner for those who aren't in a position to put their hand in their pocket to do so.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    I wouldn't determine anything because I don't own any land or property in the UK. But whoever does can decide whether the job is important enough to employ someone with a living wage to do full time, or to submit that vacancy to the DWP so they can use that vacancy for one of their long term unemployed.

    Not every landowner has a million pound in the bank, many have mortgages and non paying tenants (due to ridiculous government red tape preventing rent money going straight to landlords). Letting the lazy work for their benefits makes the place look cleaner for those who aren't in a position to put their hand in their pocket to do so.
    Thats a long winded reply, I can sum it up in a word; clueless
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Define lucky. If you've been unemployed for more than 6 months it is not unlucky. It is lack of trying. If you can't find work to match your skills then find unskilled work to hold you over while you search.

    There are people who make do in countries without generous welfare systems and they don't complain so there is zero excuse not to get by in the UK nanny state.
    I'll just take the dictionary's definition.

    So once again, I'm glad to know that anybody <6 months is OK and everyone >6months is loafing around.
    What if there is no unskilled work in one's area?

    Also are the kind of people who live in corrugated steel shacks and scavenge in landfills for food.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronK)
    I'll just take the dictionary's definition.

    So once again, I'm glad to know that anybody <6 months is OK and everyone >6months is loafing around.
    What if there is no unskilled work in one's area?

    Also are the kind of people who live in corrugated steel shacks and scavenge in landfills for food.
    Its your responsibility to move to an area that can cater for employment needs. If you can't secure a job where you are then you can apply to the council to be moved elsewhere.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Its your responsibility to move to an area that can cater for employment needs. If you can't secure a job where you are then you can apply to the council to be moved elsewhere.
    Most (if not all) places have far less council houses and flats than the people in that area that need them and people from outside the area go way down the waiting list.

    But not everyone can move in the hope they might get a job somewhere else. People have connections to an area other than jobs. They might have elderly relatives they need to look after. Or they might have children who they don't want to relocate constantly looking for jobs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    Most (if not all) places have far less council houses and flats than the people in that area that need them and people from outside the area go way down the waiting list.

    But not everyone can move in the hope they might get a job somewhere else. People have connections to an area other than jobs. They might have elderly relatives they need to look after. Or they might have children who they don't want to relocate constantly looking for jobs.
    If they're looking after relatives you can get a carer's allowance which would exempt you from it. If they have children I would question why they chose to have children if they didn't have any long term prospect of the means to care for them.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    If they're looking after relatives you can get a carer's allowance which would exempt you from it. If they have children I would question why they chose to have children if they didn't have any long term prospect of the means to care for them.
    What kind of thought process do you have?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronK)
    What kind of thought process do you have?
    He's probably just thinking that if you knew you couldn't support kids, you should have used contraception. Of course, the problem with that is that sometimes, people are just too impatient to go out and get contraception when they need it, so they have kids without meaning to. Also, some people want to scrounge off child benefits(I know people who actually do it), and though they should be punished for that; it's not fair to affect their kids with that punishment.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jazzyboy)
    He's probably just thinking that if you knew you couldn't support kids, you should have used contraception. Of course, the problem with that is that sometimes, people are just too impatient to go out and get contraception when they need it, so they have kids without meaning to. Also, some people want to scrounge off child benefits(I know people who actually do it), and though they should be punished for that; it's not fair to affect their kids with that punishment.
    Exactly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    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.
    Most people who are on benefits are probably incapable of working anyway, so they would be filtered out by those exceptions which I mentioned. Those who are capable but could take a few hours out of their week contributing to society, it's not like it would be the equivalent of a full-time job. Would you say that people who work 40 hours a week to feed and house themselves and their families are being forced? After all, they would be living in poverty if they were not working.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    "Work programmes" such as what you are proposing would be successful, and economically viable if:

    - People left them with a meaningful, employable skill set.
    - These work programs did not cost so much that they negate the short-term economic benefits of increasing the size of the skilled workforce.

    I cannot see how it is possible for both these things to be fulfilled. Either the programmes would lead to "community service" style jobs which frankly require no special skills whatsoever, or they would be nothing more than a half-assed version of the apprenticeship scheme with most of their costs but less of their benefits.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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