General Chat

The unemployed are to be made to do community work.

"Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who will outline plans for four-week placements, said: "One thing we can do is pull people in to do one or two weeks' manual work - turn up at 9am and leave at 5pm, to give people a sense of work, but also when we think they're doing other work."

This is also 'To get them used to a working day'
Those who refuse will have their benefit suspended.

'Long term' refers to those who have been unemployed for a year or more.

What are your views?

Something has to be done
To try to help the unemployed So lets see what happens

I'm in favour of this as this will promote self motivation and the learning of new skills.

about time fantastic , im doing a few hrs volluntree work if it wernt for my health i would love to do more i think voluntree work to me is so rewarding and it lifts my self esteem that im doing something too xx

Brilliant in theory as it would encourage motivation and self worth. Hopefully they would also include 'sitting down jobs' for those who are incapable of standing all day or have difficulty doing manual labour. Not everyone is capable of being a Navvy.

DET

I'm not sure I can come up with a decent argument against it but it just feels a little bit sinister to me.

It does smack of the old Workhouse rules, doesn't it?

DET

Perhaps that's what makes me feel uncomfortable, DET :s

"The Department for Work and Pensions plans to contract private providers to organise the placements with charities, voluntary organisations and companies"

Contracting private providers to organise this?
I wonder how much that will cost the rest of us?

Does it really help the unemployed?
Will litter picking really create new skills?

Surely a 'proper' job would be the best help they can get, and as there are more unemployed than their are jobs, it strikes me as a waste of time and money.

The unemployed won't get any extra money for this 'work', but of course will have to fund themselves to get there.

Did you know, moves are afoot for prisoners to be entitled to the minimum wage - which is over 3 times what the unemployed (over 25) get. True the unemployed get their rent/mortgage paid, but they have to pay bills & food from their £64 (approx) a week benefit.
Prisoners, on the other hand are housed & fed by us - and aren't they lucky to be able to work.

"Much of the money they earn will be withheld by prison governors. Some money will be used for a new Victims' Fund and some could help pay for the prison system.

The average working prisoner might keep about £20 for a 40-hour week, they said."

I would also like to point out that education is considered 'work' in prison. so they will be paid to take GCSE's and 'A' Levels.

£20 to spend on what they want is a lot more than any unemployed person I know has!

Prisoners have always had 'pocket money', so if they are now expected to work for it, all for the best.

This is dated 1995
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pocketmoney-rewards-in-jail-1585677.html

**Offenders can earn money - usually from pounds 6 to pounds 10 a week - in the prison workshops. Any money left over from their allowances is put into a savings account.**

With inflation, £20 is probably the same now as the earings was then. But it is unfortunate that this package is being proposed when other law abiding people are expected to tighten their belts

DET

Like Uggers this does make me uneasy.

Why only manual work?

Why not office/shop work for example. Really if they want people to work for their benefits then they should offer a wide range of jobs. It could enable people to pick up skills they didn't previously have and enable them to find a job that pays a living wage.

And what exactly is the plan for single mothers and fathers? Do they leave the kids in school till 5.30 ?

Actually I'd much prefer litter picking to working in a shop lol, even in the rain...the litter is easier to deal with ;)

Why do we hand over money for doing nothing?

Why can we not expect some kind of community project to be carried out for the benefits paid?

The benefits system is suppose to be a safety net not a career choice which for some it has become. There are jobs that go unfilled because they are minimum wage, or not what one would choose to do so maybe theses should be matched up with the unemployed and if they don't take them then benefits cut or suspended.

The benefits system lowers self esteem and stifles initiative. It is better to do something than nothing and also better for our children to see that we as a nation are prepared to do what it takes(as long as it is legal) to be self sufficient.

Minimum wage jobs are fine, 5 hours 1 or 2 days a week jobs are plentiful alright in my local jobcentre but could anyone live on the wage! There are very few 'proper jobs' and most of them are in the Care sector.

The job centre fails miserably to target the youngsters who'could' work fewer hours , those still single and living at home and instead targets the older ones who have a mortgage and family to support..

I was in there on Tuesday, listening to the advice (as I waited for 40 minutes), being given out to a bricklayer... late 50s...as to how he should suddenly move from a life time career of building into 'care' .. how hard can it be the man behind the desk asked ( presumably rhetorically) to use a hoist to lift the disabled without training...FGS he didn't even know what the abbreviations on the job description meant and yet he was prepared to put someone forward for the job who knew less than him...

the job centre have target figures to meet...they are desperately hanging on to their own jobs by scrabbling to place people in unsuitable jobs.

I would happily do community work, but I really think it should first go to the young unemployed, it is them who could be 50 year taxpayers after all, and who need the start into work, PROPER jobs most.

Absolutely agree with every word you've said there Rambling Rose!!

In reply to earlier postings........in theory making people do some sort of community work for their benefits so as to give *them* motivation, self esteem, new skills etc sounds good.

But, there are many people - my sister being one, who has worked continuously for over 37 years, without a break, paying a considerable amount of tax in that time - and like the example Rambling Rose gives in her post above - how much more motivated can they get???? It's obvious just from those 2 examples that the jobs are just not there! If they were, both that bricklayer and my sister WOULD be working, not trying to exist on £65 per week!!

As one politician said: "there is a world of difference between the workLESS and the workSHY", and that is very true.

The problem with our benefits system is that it's a *one size fits all*, so those that are willing and wanting to work will be doing the community work, and the workshy will find ways of *working* the system to ensure that they don't do any community work, or indeed ANY work.......and the rest will have to find travelling costs out of their meagre £65.

I absolutely agree that something needs to be done about the whole benefits system in this country, for far too long those that don't want to work have been able to milk the system, whilst those that now find themselves out of work (and want to work) because of the recession are finding themselves in a dreadful state of poverty.

Mary

If these community 'jobs' are availble for random unemployed people to do - why don't they offer them to the unemployed as permanent jobs?
Will the use of the unemployed to do various community jobs result in employed people losing their jobs? After all, if a firm can put themselves forward as a potential 'helper' and get their gardening done for free by the uemployed under this scheme, what's the point in keeping on their gardener?

...and with the rise in the retirement age will come more unemployed......

About time too.

When you read it a bit more closely is appears the scheme is said to be designed to flush out claimants who have opted for a life on benefits or are doing undeclared jobs on the side.

You can't disagree with that.

Can those who have been unemployed for a year really be accused of 'opting for a life on benefits'?
I have a friend - 60 in December, who is a carpenter. He's been unemployed for 18 months. During that time, he's been offered a few jobs of 3 or 4 days duration. He took 2 of them, using his own tools - and ended up having to fill in copious forms at the Jobcentre, treated with distrust - and ended up losing money - as he had to drive miles for the jobs.
In times gone by - when the Dole was called the Dole, accepting short term jobs was perfectly acceptable and encouraged - not so now.
He'd love to work full time again, but realises the longer he's unemployed, the more is muscles are unused to the physical strain.
He initially did environmental voluntary work to 'keep his hand in' and retain his physical prowess, but now can't afford the petrol.
If he has to get rid of his car, he'll be up the Swanee, as he lives 2 miles from the nearest bus stop an needs his car to get to jobs and carry his tools.

Litter picking/gardening for a month a year is hardly going to 'prepare' him for work!!!

When my brother was made redundant 2 years ago he signed on the dole even though he received no payout, not even £65 per week. He still had a mortgage to pay and household bills. He is a truck driver who used to work for As*a. He signed on with an agency and received no work and after 6 months changed agencies and received bit work. He drove vans, trucks, slept out in his truck basically took anything. After 2 years of doing this he has finally found a permanent position.

Needs must and is a very good motivator

I do think that a travel allowance should be paid to get too and from these voluntary positions.