Claimants To Work For Benefits Is It Fair?

[gordiescotland1]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/472791/Work-for-your-welfare-benefits-long-term-jobless-to-be-told-in-new-crackdown
What do people think of this story?

[ToraToraTora]

Great idea, surprised they don't now, on what planet would it not be fair?

[Brenden]

I believe they should do something to justify their payments -

[WELSHYORKIE]

Anything to get the lazy, good for nothing, bar stewards around where I live off their fat ar$ es from in front of their 40 inch TVs with Sky and do something for what we hard working people provide for them

[jim360]

The implication with that post is that you think they don't already do something?

Some of the quotes associated with this seem patronising in the extreme. The Express's leader: "Making jobseekers realise the value of work is vital", for example. Not everyone on long-term benefits, indeed not even most people, are in it for the ride. The rules have been toughened more and more in recent years anyway, so I think they had the idea of "the value of work" already thanks. The problem is that knowing the value of work, and actually getting a job, are two different things entirely. There are stories that are all too common of people sending out dozens, even hundreds of job applications and not even receiving a reply, let alone an interview.

The entire scheme is moving closer and closer to treating the jobless as there only through their own fault, rather than, as is more often the case, through unfortunate circumstances such as compulsory redundancies and the like. This next step just hammers home the message, for me, that the government doesn't even like jobless people, and is on the verge of seeing it as some sort of minor crime, punishable by Community Service. And not just 100 or 200 hours, but as many as can be fit in between starting and finding a job. Potentially far, far greater, then, than some common criminals get. It's demeaning -- and not even all that helpful necessarily.

[viv38]

Yes it's fair, things are changing now and everybody has to pay the price.

[woofgang]

If there are jobs that need doing then why not? I hope though, it won't be used as cheap labour and put employed people out of work.

[youngmafbog]

Benefits should be a saftey net only.

Long term benefits should not exist, it is not right to the tax payers not to the self confidence of those out of work.

If they are genuinely after work then I am sure they wont mind doing this, it will prove they can get up do a job and will help with applications.

Those that have chosen to make benefits a way of life, and there are far too many doing this, will get a wake up call and yes understand the vaule of work. ie dont do it get nowt.

[pixie373]

Yes, i think it's fair- and the experience and references should also help with job-seeking.

[cazzz1975]

what about travel expenses, jobseekers allowance is pretty badly paid as it is without having to fork out travel costs, also a lot of these menial jobs are already done by people employed by the local councils so their jobs may be under threat as free labour is more attractive than paying someone's wages.

[Svejk]

the problem is that some people paying the minimum wage will be rubbing their hands together and preparing the redundancy notices for their current workforce.

[EcclesCake]

In principle I think it is a good idea.

Developing or redeveloping a work ethic and getting out and mixing with other people is a good thing for those who have become isolated through unemployment. To get back into a routine for those who have found there days merging and lacking structure will help them adjust to going to work.

I'm not sure how daily appointments at the Job Centre is going to help if they are a bus ride away, you can't expect those on the dole to lash critical cash on bus fares. And similarly if they are given 'jobs' beyond walking distance that would also be unreasonable.

It's an interesting concept but there is an awful lot more thought required.

[Zeuhl]

picking up on cazz's point.

who will fund the incremental out of pocket expenses incurred when working for free or indeed travel expenses for any additional trips to the Job Centre?

[Zeuhl]

snap! eccles

[youngmafbog]

Perhaps we could buy them a Boris bike?

[Ken4155]

It will not solve the problem of high unemployment and is merely pandering to those who bought 'Benefit Street' hook, line and sinker. Including many on here. Years ago, at the beginning of Thatcher's dictatorship, i found myself out of work for over 2 and 1/2 years despite numerous applications for jobs. I volunteered to work on the Manpower Services scheme for 26 hours per week - 26 hours because any more would have meant i was able to claim certain benefits! The work involved stone cleaning railway bridges in and around the Burnley area and i volunteered for it to get me out of the house. The pay was less than my dole so each week i still had to 'sign on' and they topped it up. Travel expenses, etc had to come out of my wage. I did not walk into a job at the end of the 13 weeks and was out of work for a further 6 months.

[Zeuhl]

Perhaps we could spend £billions making all the roads safe enough for anybody to cycle to and from work/job centre?

[pixie373]

They could be offered voluntary jobs. Surely jobseekers would be less than minimum wage- so no incentive for employers to change staff- they would still be paying the same.

[Ken4155]

pixie; how can you be 'offered' voluntary work? To volunteer is to 'offer services for free'. Do you mean 'made to do voluntary work'?

[pixie373]

Yes, ken. A certain number of hours per week to receive your benefits. I said "offered" because there's always a choice. Don't do it- don't get benefits.

[Daffy6543]

Daily sessions at job centres? How the heck are people from rural communities supposed to access the job centre and pay the cost of getting there if they are on job seekers allowance? Return bus fare to our nearest job centre would be around seven pounds a day.