ChatterBank0 min ago
Work for benefits idea...
http://news.sky.com/s..._Government_Proposals
Is it reasonable of the state to expect something in return for free money?
Is it reasonable of the state to expect something in return for free money?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://www.theanswerb...s/Question955405.html
done to death yesterday i think
done to death yesterday i think
It's being argued here http://www.theanswerb...s/Question955405.html
May be a good idea-but it very cheap labour at £2 per hour....almost guaranteed some employers will take advantage.And manual labour may not be suitable for older or some female recipients.
May be a good idea-but it very cheap labour at £2 per hour....almost guaranteed some employers will take advantage.And manual labour may not be suitable for older or some female recipients.
-- answer removed --
There is a limit to the work you can find for this sort of thing.
For a start you have to make sure that you're not competing with a commercial company otherwise you'll be putting people out of paid work and damaging the private sector (which is apparently going to save us from this mess).
Then you've got to have people who are willing and able to supervise workers who don't want to be there - I don't think many charities will want to spend their time trying to oversee and chase up a bunch of people who are only turning up because they're being made to.
So it plays well to the Tory gallery which I think you can see from a lot of the responses on here - but it has some pretty severe practical problems.
Before you know it there will be 6 month waiting lists to go on one
I suspect it will be launced with a fanfare and there will be a load of selected press stories featuring people who've found work through it but it will struggle and be allowed to die a slow quiet death.
I'd be amazed if it was still going strong at the next election but we'll see
For a start you have to make sure that you're not competing with a commercial company otherwise you'll be putting people out of paid work and damaging the private sector (which is apparently going to save us from this mess).
Then you've got to have people who are willing and able to supervise workers who don't want to be there - I don't think many charities will want to spend their time trying to oversee and chase up a bunch of people who are only turning up because they're being made to.
So it plays well to the Tory gallery which I think you can see from a lot of the responses on here - but it has some pretty severe practical problems.
Before you know it there will be 6 month waiting lists to go on one
I suspect it will be launced with a fanfare and there will be a load of selected press stories featuring people who've found work through it but it will struggle and be allowed to die a slow quiet death.
I'd be amazed if it was still going strong at the next election but we'll see
Judging by the kind of work these people will be "forced" to do, if anybody, and that includes most of the people doing this so called work think they will get real jobs off the back of this so called work experience then they are living in cloud phucking cuckoo land.
Who is going to supervise/check/chase etc etc ?
Who is going to decide if they are working hard enough ?
Define hard enough or enough work done..
If they suspend someones benefits they will have the right to all sorts of appeals as they do now.
Sounds like a job for a ..........Quango !!!!!
Will the people actively looking for work and fulfilling all the Jobcentre criteria have to do it ?
Will the work be matched in any way or form to peoples skills ? nah, didnt think so !
Another typical hairbrained government scheme that ultimately will cost more to administer than it will save and a bureaucratic quagmire.
Do our wonderful politicians think that if you apply for a company for job then they just give you a job ?
I know three unemployed highly skilled people who between them have sent out around 500 applications at the last count, and recieved 27 replies ,thanks but no thanks, blah blah, keep you on file, blah blah.
I'm sure this work experience will make all the difference in getting them back into full time worthwhile satisfying employment ! not
Who is going to supervise/check/chase etc etc ?
Who is going to decide if they are working hard enough ?
Define hard enough or enough work done..
If they suspend someones benefits they will have the right to all sorts of appeals as they do now.
Sounds like a job for a ..........Quango !!!!!
Will the people actively looking for work and fulfilling all the Jobcentre criteria have to do it ?
Will the work be matched in any way or form to peoples skills ? nah, didnt think so !
Another typical hairbrained government scheme that ultimately will cost more to administer than it will save and a bureaucratic quagmire.
Do our wonderful politicians think that if you apply for a company for job then they just give you a job ?
I know three unemployed highly skilled people who between them have sent out around 500 applications at the last count, and recieved 27 replies ,thanks but no thanks, blah blah, keep you on file, blah blah.
I'm sure this work experience will make all the difference in getting them back into full time worthwhile satisfying employment ! not
Here's the one true question - For What Purpose?
The genuine job seekers will not be helped by this; just distracted and demoralised
The scroungers will do the absolute minimum to comply and go back on benefits ta very much
We will foot the bill for administering the pointless scheme.
But it appears to be a good thing unless you think about it - so obviously the government like it.
.
The genuine job seekers will not be helped by this; just distracted and demoralised
The scroungers will do the absolute minimum to comply and go back on benefits ta very much
We will foot the bill for administering the pointless scheme.
But it appears to be a good thing unless you think about it - so obviously the government like it.
.
-- answer removed --
quite a few years ago something similar was in place. My husband worked on what was called the community programme for a while and got the dole rate plus a tenner.
My point is...the work that he did - painting youth clubs, clearing canal towpaths - was work that had to be done so why not pay a family man or men a living wage to do similar jobs.
I have heard those who supervise those doing sentenced by the court communty service have problems getting those chaps and chapesses to do the work which they are supposed to do and I cannot see it being much different when this new jobseekers allowance thingie comes in.
The over riding principle that the tories work on is 'doesn't work = workshy, instead of the reality for a lot of jobless people the principle is 'doesn't work = no flipping job to work at.
My point is...the work that he did - painting youth clubs, clearing canal towpaths - was work that had to be done so why not pay a family man or men a living wage to do similar jobs.
I have heard those who supervise those doing sentenced by the court communty service have problems getting those chaps and chapesses to do the work which they are supposed to do and I cannot see it being much different when this new jobseekers allowance thingie comes in.
The over riding principle that the tories work on is 'doesn't work = workshy, instead of the reality for a lot of jobless people the principle is 'doesn't work = no flipping job to work at.
There are a number of simple jobs that can be done by the unemployed. There seems to be a trend nowadays for road signs to be obscured by hedges etc
With Winter approaching deicing of payments would reduce bone fractures for the elderly
There are many jobs that need doing that are not done at present and fits in with Cameron's big society so its no stigma for those in excellent health to help those less unfortunate..
With Winter approaching deicing of payments would reduce bone fractures for the elderly
There are many jobs that need doing that are not done at present and fits in with Cameron's big society so its no stigma for those in excellent health to help those less unfortunate..
Jake, Cameron's idea is not new and will just be a re-vamp on schemes that existed before. As you say supervision is necessary. I can only go on what has happened before. A transit people carrier picked up the dole claimants from the job centre each day and took them to a location where a walled garden run by the council had fallen into an overgrown mess. The 20 or so claimants spent their day making the area fit for regrowth by pulling out the unwanted shrubs and bushes. If the claimant failed to turn up without a valid excuse his dole money was stopped. This continued for a 6 month period unless the claimant managed to find a job. They were paid an extra £10/week and this scheme was well attended in fear of losing their dole money.
Well trimming hedges should keep them busy for a week. Whose going to pay for all the secateurs that will be needed?
who will kit out them all out (and insure them) for pavement deicing - assuming we have any ice this winter? and if it's just in the frozen north would we bus unemployed from other parts of the country to help - who pays for transport and accommodation?
Sorry - it's a nice idea but just doesn't stack up when it is thought through. It is totally unworkable and ultimately any benefits will be outweighed by the cost of implementation and management.
Sadly, we shouldn't expect this bunch in power to be any better at thinking things through than any previous shower. They are politicians not 'Doers'.
.
.
who will kit out them all out (and insure them) for pavement deicing - assuming we have any ice this winter? and if it's just in the frozen north would we bus unemployed from other parts of the country to help - who pays for transport and accommodation?
Sorry - it's a nice idea but just doesn't stack up when it is thought through. It is totally unworkable and ultimately any benefits will be outweighed by the cost of implementation and management.
Sadly, we shouldn't expect this bunch in power to be any better at thinking things through than any previous shower. They are politicians not 'Doers'.
.
.
