Work for benefits

[Zippeyrude]

The long-term unemployed will have to undertake work placements in return for their benefits, under changes being unveiled by Chancellor George Osborne.
From April, people who are jobless after being on the work programme will face three options, including community work, or face losing benefits.


Mr Osborne unveiled the "tough love" plan at the Conservative conference.


Labour said it was proof the coalition's main welfare-to-work scheme - set up two years ago - had failed.


In his speech to the party conference in Manchester, the chancellor is expected to say that while the government will not "abandon" the long-term unemployed, no-one will be able to get something for nothing.


Those who have been out of work for a long time will have to work hard to find a job, he will say. Those who have not found work after two years on the existing work programme - where contractors are paid a fee to get people into a job - will face a new scheme called help-to-work.


To still qualify for jobseeker's allowance they will have three options - work placements, such as cleaning up litter; daily visits to a job centre; or taking part in compulsory training, for example, to improve their literacy.


People would have to remain on help-to-work until they found employment.


Those who breach the rules will lose four weeks' worth of benefits. Anyone who breaks the rules a second time faces losing three months' worth of benefits.


Ahead of his speech Mr Osborne said: "We are saying there is no option of doing nothing for your benefits, no something for nothing any more. People are going to have to do things to get their dole and that is going to help them into work."


In his speech he said expected to give more details, saying: "They will do useful work to put something back into their community; making meals for the elderly, clearing up litter, working for a local charity.


"Others will be made to attend the job centre every working day. And for those with underlying problems, like drug addiction and illiteracy, there will be an intensive regime of help.


"No-one will be ignored or left without help. But no-one will get something for nothing."


Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves, said it had "taken three wasted years of rising long-term unemployment and a failed work programme to come up with this new scheme".


"But this policy is not as ambitious as Labour's compulsory jobs guarantee, which would ensure there is a paid job for every young person out of work for over 12 months and every adult unemployed for more than two years," she added.


A Department of Work and Pensions assessment of mandatory work activity - a similar compulsory work scheme introduced by ministers in 2011 - found it "had no impact on the likelihood of being employed".


And on the work programme, DWP figures suggested one in 10 of those seen found a long-term job.


"Both internationally and more recently in the UK, the experience has been these schemes really don't do much to help people get into sustained employment," said Jonathan Portes - a former chief economist at the department.


"The experience so far has been they cost quite a bit of money and don't deliver that much in the way of results."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24327470

Lots of people here will disagree with this for many reasons, but i am in favour. I shudder at agreeing with

Having never signed on, or fortunately never had to, I have a strong work ethic and believe that there is loads that can be done without needing to 'steal jobs' from the sweepers etc.

Roads can be swept more frequently, etc. it doesnt have to be more people stealing the jobs of the existing workers.

[blaggard]

Surely if the work exists it should be on the job market NOT foisted of as cheap labour for the DWP to administer?

[ilscuro]

I don't see a problem with people having to contribute(work) to earn their benefits, obviously due to illness etc all of them can't, but the able bodied should do imo

[Mr.James]

I'm all for community based type work... But I don't think the private sector should benefit something like this.

It should be paid at minimum wage too though. So if benefits are £60 a week, and minimum wage £6 an hour then they should only have to do 10 hours.


________________
Sent via Tapatalk

[Zippeyrude]

There is always work to be done, but not always the funds. We could do with more of lots of public services.

I see this as a step towards the end of the entitlement / 'I want everything for free' culture.

Why should people 'earn benefits' for doing nothing? Why should I have to work my nuts off to afford a simple thing like a telly when others on the dole seem to be able to 'afford' these.

If I were in receipt of benefits I would gladly contribute to the upkeep of my local neighbourhood for example (as long as others were required to as well) - and I'd accept the minimum wage.

[baggy13]

Completely agree while in theory it's a good idea I can't help think that big business will jump on this and exploit it for all it's worth with free labour putting another minimum wager on the dole

[blaggard]

Lovely idea but wide open for abuse.

[Mystical_2K]

Lovely idea but wide open for abuse.

nothing new there then

[QfanatiQ]

I'm all for community based type work... But I don't think the private sector should benefit something like this.

It should be paid at minimum wage too though. So if benefits are £60 a week, and minimum wage £6 an hour then they should only have to do 10 hours.

I concur. I have listened to a lot of this on LBC with James O'Brian, Julie Hartley Brewer is on after and often addresses this subject, from a totally different stance.

I constantly change my mind. I know it would have to be looked at deeper, but this posted by Mr.James seems pretty straightforward and most fair. I like this approach and idea a lot.

Q

[tombott]

Wow, nobody saw this one coming.
Still it will appeal to the blue rinse Daily Fascist readers.
This is just another way of shaming people who are unfortunate enough to be out of work.
Maybe they should wear some sort of badge as well, then we could all direct our hatred at them when we see them.

[Zippeyrude]

This is just another way of shaming people who are unfortunate enough to be out of work.
Maybe they should wear some sort of badge as well, then we could all direct our hatred at them when we see them.

This is about necessity and proportionality - in other words where does a persons right to avoid 'embarrassment' outweigh their right to receive public funds 'for free'.

This 'veil of shame' doesnt stop people queuing to sign on - so why the difference in standard?

I would rather see it as a sign of someone doing something positive for the community and earning their way - far from shameful.

[Bald Bouncer]

Workhouses were formally abolished by legislation in 1930, in every other country in the world this has been done it has taken jobs from working people or trade from companies, been exploited, reduced wages and workers rights so rather than speculate on if this is a good idea or if it would work or not I would rather look at example of it in practice of which there are many.

This is also a bypass to the minimum wage, we all have an obligation to work and support ourselves and families, Governments have an obligation to create the jobs through good management of the economy and creating conditions for business and growth, most of these people never chose to be unemployed so who is not doing their job.

[blaggard]

Wow, nobody saw this one coming.
Still it will appeal to the blue rinse Daily Fascist readers.
This is just another way of shaming people who are unfortunate enough to be out of work.
Maybe they should wear some sort of badge as well, then we could all direct our hatred at them when we see them.

Tattoo would be better. . .

[Zippeyrude]

Is it also fair to say that the UK has one of the most generous packages for benefits, compared to other European countries?

[Bald Bouncer]

Is it also fair to say that the UK has one of the most generous packages for benefits, compared to other European countries?

Not at all it's actually one of the worst

[Ginnerfreak]

we all have an obligation to work and support ourselves and families,.

Well said.. Unfortunately there appears to be a generation who don't understand this. There are two many families who rub by on state benefits and see this as a way of life. I see this as a issue with people aspirations.. I am not sure that forcing them to work will change that mindset. This will simply eat more and more public money with administration and policing another flawed process.

The creation and policing of this flawed idea will simply put money into outsource service providers like G4s, serco, fujitsu, etc.. and remove it from the already stretched public purse.

[Zippeyrude]

There are two many families who rub by on state benefits and see this as a way of life. I see this as a issue with people aspirations.. I am not sure that forcing them to work will change that mindset

But unfortunately that stance does little to recognise those that are used to support those that dont contribute.

Why should I work and others are 'allowed' not to?

Of course aspirations are relevant, however there should not be a free meal for those that can work but dont. I really dont care if some people's wont be inspired to work by being forced to, this makes the initiative all the more relevant.

This will simply eat more and more public money with administration and policing another flawed process

Indeed, the fear is that this will be poorly administered and the civil servants, contractors and MPs will 'steal the cream'.

[4me2]

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is an ignorant fuckwit.

I'm also sure European law would not allow this.

Being made to visit the job centre every fucking day?????

That's fine if you live within walking distance of the job centre.

Stop, no it's fucking not ! Reality check, even when you have to go once every two weeks the places are packed out.

The stupid cunt who plucked these ideas out of his arse needs bitch slapping with a reality shovel.

So you stop people's benefit for weeks or months only leads to one thing, higher crime through muggings and theft.
How about actually stopping rich cunts exploiting tax laws and jailing MP's who break laws ?

[EvilBoB]

If it's run properly it will be good but I just don't trust any of these 'initiatives'. Look how many young people got screwed over with the work experience project. Companies get free employees and the people on placement get treated like second class employees.

On the plus side it would mean the streets would be cleaner

[Bald Bouncer]

On the plus side it would mean the streets would be cleaner

Might be better if the fucking schools started impressing on the children again not to throw shit on the floor it's a joke near my daughters school and scumbag parents just standing there while they throw litter on the floor.