Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 4:44 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I can see how that is, on the face of it, a tempting idea.
Why should anyone be paid for doing nothing?
But when you look deeper, if someone is doing work, shouldn't they at least be paid the minimum wage?

Because they are not in work. They are doing it to earn a handout. We can't have people choosing this as a career path, it should always less favourable than actually working. For a lot of people it would be a good thing, it would give them the discipline to hold down a working routine, which is why a lot of people end up in and out of work. It would also give a sense of purpose for those who are indefinitely trapped in the cycle of unemployment. It could also be put into place that all council vacancies were sourced from this pool, the highest achievers being given proper jobs. If they want proper pay, they can try to get a proper job or just not do it(See below).

Having read further into this, it's all a non-issue anyway, as there is apparently a choice between doing the work, attending an education programme (Easier to sit in a classroom than do manual labour) or attend the job centre daily. Most of the drop outs they are trying to target would naturally choose option 2 or 3.

As everyone on here is against this, what would your suggestion be to stop it happening? Do we just let people who choose life on benefits do that indefinitely? Really? The Government here is clearly trying to target those who choose not to work, rather than those who are just cannot find work. For all the claims on here that those people don't exist, they clearly do and in great numbers.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 4:47 pm  

How many jobs are available for all these nasty unemployed?

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:13 pm  

Mintball wrote:

How many jobs are available for all these nasty unemployed?

Significantly more than many are led to believe - the immigrants from eastern europe don't seem to have an issues!! You go to any casual labour agency and see who is knocking their doors down to get some work?

No one objects to the genuine unemployed but it those who have no intention of ever trying to find work that man find frustrating.

[DaveO]

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:17 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Gideon is talking about making unemployment benefits claimants work for free.
He says he wants end the "something for nothing" culture.

I don't think he sees the irony.

The even bigger irony came from Theresa May who apparently wants to put an end to people being exploited so I heard on the news on the way home. She will be having Gideon and IDS arrested then?

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:32 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Significantly more than many are led to believe - the immigrants from eastern europe don't seem to have an issues!! You go to any casual labour agency and see who is knocking their doors down to get some work?

No one objects to the genuine unemployed but it those who have no intention of ever trying to find work that man find frustrating.

Okay. Please provide evidence that the official unemployed v jobs available figure is wrong.

Then you can consider the issue of pay for the job – and please remember that research suggests that the government's fantasy over the long-term unemployed not wanting a job doesn't hold up.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:34 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Because they are not in work. They are doing it to earn a handout. We can't have people choosing this as a career path, it should always less favourable than actually working. For a lot of people it would be a good thing, it would give them the discipline to hold down a working routine, which is why a lot of people end up in and out of work. It would also give a sense of purpose for those who are indefinitely trapped in the cycle of unemployment. It could also be put into place that all council vacancies were sourced from this pool, the highest achievers being given proper jobs. If they want proper pay, they can try to get a proper job or just not do it(See below).

Having read further into this, it's all a non-issue anyway, as there is apparently a choice between doing the work, attending an education programme (Easier to sit in a classroom than do manual labour) or attend the job centre daily. Most of the drop outs they are trying to target would naturally choose option 2 or 3.

As everyone on here is against this, what would your suggestion be to stop it happening? Do we just let people who choose life on benefits do that indefinitely? Really? The Government here is clearly trying to target those who choose not to work, rather than those who are just cannot find work. For all the claims on here that those people don't exist, they clearly do and in great numbers.

Good post.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:47 pm  

Saddened! wrote: As everyone on here is against this, what would your suggestion be to stop it happening? Do we just let people who choose life on benefits do that indefinitely? Really? The Government here is clearly trying to target those who choose not to work, rather than those who are just cannot find work. For all the claims on here that those people don't exist, they clearly do and in great numbers. You didn't read my link then from The Rowntree Foundation? Just for you I'll post it again: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

Saddened! wrote: As everyone on here is against this, what would your suggestion be to stop it happening? Do we just let people who choose life on benefits do that indefinitely? Really? The Government here is clearly trying to target those who choose not to work, rather than those who are just cannot find work. For all the claims on here that those people don't exist, they clearly do and in great numbers. You didn't read my link then from The Rowntree Foundation? Just for you I'll post it again: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:12 pm  

I'd hazard a guess that the percentage of unemployed with zero intention of finding work is less than single digits. Unfortunately, the way Jobcentres are now structured, there are no employees with sufficient expertise or time to spot the few feckless individuals that create all the headlines. But at least the £71 a week JSA is some form of guarantee, what happens when they are found a "job" that offers a zero-hours contract and they could conceivably be earning less that JSA? I suppose the government could continue reducing JSA until work really did pay. I'm still at a loss as to why our resident reight-wingers can froth and foam on this thread, yet have spectacularly failed to engage in discussion on Minball's thread on Deregulation, casualisation and low pay. Are they waiting for IDS and Cameroon to speak before coming up with any ideas?

I'd hazard a guess that the percentage of unemployed with zero intention of finding work is less than single digits. Unfortunately, the way Jobcentres are now structured, there are no employees with sufficient expertise or time to spot the few feckless individuals that create all the headlines. But at least the £71 a week JSA is some form of guarantee, what happens when they are found a "job" that offers a zero-hours contract and they could conceivably be earning less that JSA? I suppose the government could continue reducing JSA until work really did pay. I'm still at a loss as to why our resident reight-wingers can froth and foam on this thread, yet have spectacularly failed to engage in discussion on Minball's thread on Deregulation, casualisation and low pay. Are they waiting for IDS and Cameroon to speak before coming up with any ideas?

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:13 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

You didn't read my link then from The Rowntree Foundation? Just for you I'll post it again:

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

They obviously never visited Hull then

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:14 pm  

Hull White Star wrote: You didn't read my link then from The Rowntree Foundation? Just for you I'll post it again: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths That just talks about generations. 15,000 households where two generations have never worked - disgusting.

Hull White Star wrote: You didn't read my link then from The Rowntree Foundation? Just for you I'll post it again: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths That just talks about generations. 15,000 households where two generations have never worked - disgusting.