View Full Version : If there is work to be done then should somebody not be paid a proper wage....
...to do the job?
Or do you prefer the alternative of getting the unemployed to do it for their benefits?
If you go for the second option then please do comment as to where should the line be drawn between the two extremes....
"No unemployed person is forced to work for their benefits"
"Everybody should be made unemployed & forced to work for their benefits" (Would cause a massive increase in the welfare bill but employers would save so much money that I'm sure that they wouldn't mind paying more tax to cover it, they would still be quids in)
.......................
Poll started in response to this thread (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?179328)
If there is work to be done and the Jobcentre provides the Labour for that work then they should be paid the rate for the job or minimum wage at least. From the story in the other thread it sounds like the Jobcentre is acting more like a Gangmaster!!
But this is what you get when you vote the Tories in of course.
C3...........[disgust]
There is a point at which work for benefits can be a positive experience - but that work would have to be carefully selected and for short term only. It should only be community based work and absolutely NOT for a private employer. Three weeks maximum working for your benefit with the serious chance of a job at the end of the three weeks is the ONLY way that unemployed people should be working for nothing for a private employer. By serious chance I mean - unless you mess up big time then you have this particular job. Three weeks is the optimum time for both emplyer and employee because the first week the new person will hate it, it will feel strange and new and scary; the second week they will be starting to feel better and maybe have found someone to go for coffee and lunch with and be starting to learn what is expected of them; The third week they should be doing a reasonable job - the employer gets an idea of their abilities and the employee feels better and more confident. Three weeks maximum.
Community work done for benefit can also be difficult, remember that there are costs involved in puttoing someone to work when they receive benefits - childcare, transport costs, lunch costs. decent clothing if you have been out of work for ages and the like. These would all have to be met from somewhere and you cannot expect people on benefits alone to be able to meet these costs from their existing benefit. Again there should be a POINT to it. Giving someone good, recent experience and references might be all that is needed but there may be more needed int he way of support or training to tackle underlying causes of unemployment. It must not be an end in itself but a pathway to employment otherwise what is the point. Most unemployed people do not choose unemployment as a way of life so we should be prepared to support people out of it rather than punish them for being IN it.
manloveswife
05-Jun-12, 21:14
I voted no to working for benefits, if there is a proper job of of work to be done then no company should benefit from free labour paid for by the taxpayer and to the detriment of a Jobseeker. Give the job seeker a job.
However, given the society we live in, I have long been of the opinion that after a certain length of unemployment job seekers should perhaps work for their benefit, perhaps at a slightly enhanced rate to cover extra expenses, but under the strict understanding that this is for services that would otherwise be unprovided and only for goverment bodies not for the profit of private firms.
Perhaps doing jobs round the town or helping old folk and such like, with good terms and time off for interviews, help in finding employment along with genuine real world skills training to increase the job seekers prospects. This must be above and beyond the services already provided and NOT as a substitute for any job that would otherwise already exist or be created, though quite how we police that I do not know. If we could though, I believe it would benefit both our communities and the job seeker.
Then again, I'd actually like to see the re-nationalisation of many of our industries whereby they are run not for profit but to provide jobs for the public and services at a reasonable cost to the end user, though I don't believe they should be run as wasteful organisations. Better that the average man has a job working for the council, the railways, the electric companies for a living wage even at the expense of over employment in these industries as this is better than paying a man to sit at home. Use the profits to provide employment, not to provide hefty profits for a few. Providing employment in this way puts jobseekers in work who then become consumers which perpetuates growth in the economy rather than it stagnating as it currently is.
I say yes but only for however many hours it would take at minimum wage to earn their jobseekers allowance.
equusdriving
05-Jun-12, 21:51
Not really going as planned then Alrock :(
Not really going as planned then Alrock :(
To the contrary....
Interesting discussion & some well thought out answers....
Care to actually answer the question yourself & explain your reasoning?
I'm fully with focusRS!
You can't let it get to the point where people are getting used as slave labour. There are plenty employers that would milk the free labour for all it's worth.
I worked for a company last year and they were wanting to take on people under this "work for your benefits scheme" and the plan (from the top) was to get them doing all the crap of the day so we didn't have to! They took on a young boy from the PPP with the promise of training him up with a skill but never had any intention to do it! I tried getting him to go to college instead but he wasn't keen.
Company went bust not long after so hopefully the young boy went to the college in the end!
equusdriving
05-Jun-12, 22:15
To the contrary....
Interesting discussion & some well thought out answers....
Care to actually answer the question yourself & explain your reasoning?
well firstly I think you have loaded the poll question in your favour, and as I said on the other thread I am fully in favour of the medium to long term unemployed carrying out any useful jobs in the community such as grass cutting, graffiti removal, litter picking helping pensioners etc, but not to do jobs that already exist or that will compete with anyone as has been previously implied ! I think this will remove the "its not worth me working cause I will lose my benefits culture" it will get the workers into a routine which is needed to do any job and it should instil a sense of pride and self importance into their lives while helping their community who after all are mostly helping them
it should instil a sense of pride and self importance into their lives while helping their community who after all are mostly helping them
It will only instill a sense of pride and self importance into their lives if there is a point and if it is a means to an end. Just churning round people on a merry go round of endless, dull and possibly pointless tasks will benefit no one. In addition it will only be helpful if other people dont see it as something to take the mickey out of or denigrate in any way. If you are doing this sort of work and getting insulted and sneered at then it helps no one.
equusdriving
06-Jun-12, 00:31
It will only instill a sense of pride and self importance into their lives if there is a point and if it is a means to an end. Just churning round people on a merry go round of endless, dull and possibly pointless tasks will benefit no one. In addition it will only be helpful if other people dont see it as something to take the mickey out of or denigrate in any way. If you are doing this sort of work and getting insulted and sneered at then it helps no one.
so do you think gardeners, cleaners, carers, handy men/women, painters, road sweepers etc are something to take the mickey out of or denigrate? if not why would unemployed people doing similar jobs be? and I would get more pride and self importance from doing these jobs than doing nothing everyday, which I would think would invite more insults and sneers!
It will only instill a sense of pride and self importance into their lives if there is a point and if it is a means to an end. Just churning round people on a merry go round of endless, dull and possibly pointless tasks will benefit no one. In addition it will only be helpful if other people dont see it as something to take the mickey out of or denigrate in any way. If you are doing this sort of work and getting insulted and sneered at then it helps no one.
For me, it's yes and no.
There's plenty of endless, dull tasks out there that aren't pointless but currently aren't done. Beach cleaning for example.
I don't think anyone would sneer or insult someone doing this. If I was an employer and saw somebody unemployed doing this, I would find it commendable.
Yes, in an ideal world the council would have money to pay people to do this, but, as they don't, why not "employ the unemployed" to do such things? Why not give the council gardeners a "mate" to help with the work?
I wouldn't want to see the unemployed deliberately exploited (as I'm sure some employers would try to do), but why not make those able to work do so for the good of the community?
Surely for those who really want to work, it's got to be better than sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle all day?
Just to through it into the mix....
I wonder how many of those who answered "Yes, make them work for their benefits" are in receipt of Tax Credits?
Just to through it into the mix....
I wonder how many of those who answered "Yes, make them work for their benefits" are in receipt of Tax Credits?
I can't speak for all, but I, for one, am not.
But Tax Credits are a means of allowing those who work, and contribute, pay less tax.
I fail to see how that has a place in a debate whether those who don't work should be made to contribute.
But Tax Credits are a means of allowing those who work, and contribute, pay less tax.
I fail to see how that has a place in a debate whether those who don't work should be made to contribute.
Just trying to ascertain as to whether or not those on tax credits, effectively getting something for nothing are generally speaking against the unemployed also getting something for nothing, a rather hypocritical position if it does exist in my view.
Just trying to ascertain as to whether or not those on tax credits, effectively getting something for nothing are generally speaking against the unemployed also getting something for nothing, a rather hypocritical position if it does exist in my view.
Fair enough.
I agree with your original post that, if a job needs done, then somebody should be employed (and paid fairly) to do it.
Unfortunately, there's not enough money to pay for all the jobs that need (or could be) done.
That being the case, and the reason I answered 'yes' above, I would like to see jobseekers carrying out tasks for the community. I would certainly prefer this to being placed in the private sector where, no doubt, they would be taken advantage of.
It would have to be done carefully though, and to make sure that current council jobs aren't removed because of the influx of cheap (free) labour.
I voted yes and I receive nothing other than the wages I earn.
I voted no,after being unemployed for several years I know how it feels to be made to feel inferior and literally beg for what you are due! I can honestly say hand on heart that the system allows those who dont want to work to continue to do so,so this idea would simply mkae those who do want to find empolyment work as slave labour,and belittle them even more! When I was on benefits I was made to feel like the worst scum on earth but yet others could come in and demand a sign on time that didnt mean getting up early!!!!You will never change those sort of people,so why make those who are genuinely in need of help work for it? In MY opinion this is one step away from community service x
so do you think gardeners, cleaners, carers, handy men/women, painters, road sweepers etc are something to take the mickey out of or denigrate? if not why would unemployed people doing similar jobs be? and I would get more pride and self importance from doing these jobs than doing nothing everyday, which I would think would invite more insults and sneers!Of course I dont think that but people sneer at the unemployed all the time! You only have to read the ever recurring threads on here to see that. Do you think that dressing them up in waterproof jackets and sending them out with a shovel will change that.... Especially if they are standing around on a badly organised scheme with no focus. The jobs you mention are being done by paid workers as we speak and I would be very concerned if councils and other organisations were replacing employees with unpaid benefit recipients. A programme like this would need to create worthwhile opportunities for people to do which help people to move from unemployment to employment.
Its maybe worth mentioning that this has been done in some way before. Community Programme was run in the 80s and 90s and offered paid work.... £68 for 30 hours if i remember rightly and people were able to claim housing benefit and FIS - the tax credits of the day. It
was popular for a while and where i lived included jobs cleaning out and regenerating the canal, running community initiatives to help disadvantaged groups, cleaning gardens for the elderly. Supervisors and trainers were also recruited through this type of scheme. As funding dried up and unemployment started to fall it was withdrawn. In some areas it was quite good but in others it was dreadful.
There are a few parallels to cheap prison labour actually: Justice Secretary Ken Clarke admits plans for cheap prison work could jeopardise jobs(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/justice-secretary-ken-clarke-admits-plans-for-cheap-prison-work-could-jeopardise-jobs-7817812.html) (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/justice-secretary-ken-clarke-admits-plans-for-cheap-prison-work-could-jeopardise-jobs-7817812.html)
Essentially it could impact the jobs of people already working unless we pay at least minimum wage for work. By work I mean doing the same sort of thing a full time employee would be expected to do. I suppose I'd be okay with sending people who are up for it on training weeks etc, provided they actually get training and there's a reasonable expectation of someone being hired.
equusdriving
06-Jun-12, 11:28
Just to through it into the mix....
I wonder how many of those who answered "Yes, make them work for their benefits" are in receipt of Tax Credits?
then surely they would all ready be working to entitle them to receive it ?
Another relevant topical story actually: Unpaid jubilee stewards: Prescott accuses government of exploitation - Former deputy PM says incident in which unemployed people had to sleep under bridge raises questions about Olympics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/06/unpaid-jubilee-stewards-prescott-exploitation)
then surely they would all ready be working to entitle them to receive ?
Correct...
What I am getting at, since I have to spell it out to you is... It they are working & in receipt of Tax Credits & deserve them because they are working then why should the unemployed not also be entitled to the same level of income if they are also working?
equusdriving
06-Jun-12, 12:53
Correct...
What I am getting at, since I have to spell it out to you is... It they are working & in receipt of Tax Credits & deserve them because they are working then why should the unemployed not also be entitled to the same level of income if they are also working?
Im sure that a lot of the unemployed already get more in benefits (for doing absolutely nothing) than most people get in tax credits for actually working!
how is it that someone who bothers to work and pays out for travel and child-minding is in a lot of cases is still worse of than a layabout sponger who's only goals in life are to knock out kids for the taxpayer to keep and to appear on the Jeremy Kyle show to whine about how hard done by they are
by the way will you be locking the poll soon as it must be getting a bit embarrassing for you?
Im sure that a lot of the unemployed already get more in benefits (for doing absolutely nothing) than most people get in tax credits for actually working!
how is it that someone who bothers to work and pays out for travel and child-minding is in a lot of cases is still worse of than a layabout sponger who's only goals in life are to knock out kids for the taxpayer to keep and to appear on the Jeremy Kyle show to whine about how hard done by they are
There are exceptions in every situation & this is another case where For some that may be the case but for the vast majority it most certainly is not, but the media do tend to pick up on the exceptional cases & like many you pick up on this propaganda as a way of justifying your views without having to put any real thought into the matter.
by the way will you be locking the poll soon as it must be getting a bit embarrassing for you?
I won't be locking anything, I started this thread & poll as a way of gauging opinion & stimulating discussion on the matter as a way of getting people to actually think about the issue rather than just accepting the propaganda as fact without any actual thought on the matter.
OK, the poll might not be going 100% my way but as for the discussion side of it I am happy with, some very well thought out responses, with some very good points.
The consensus of opinion seems to be against slave labour & in favour of a fair wage for a fair days work.
So... No... This thread will not be getting added to.... Tantrum throwing and thread locking (reloaded) (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?163595-Tantrum-throwing-and-thread-locking-%28reloaded%29)
I voted no btw. I'd happily do something that gets me off my ass and back into production! The money isn't really an issue with me but will be for many. As long as i can live, feed and clothe myself and pay the bills off whatever money i got for this work i would be happy, as it is, £72 a week jobseekers allowance does precisely this. Way i see it though is i pay into the system when i work so some help when i am out of work is always welcome. I certainly paid in a hell of a lot more over the years than i have ever taken out and i know many unemployed have never paid a penny into the system yet milk it for what its worth. I digress here and im going off topic sorry. The problem about using "unemployed" people in any situation is training and health & safety. You can't do anything these days without proper training and/or supervision. Where will the funds come from for this training? OK, say the funds are there and the organisation trains the people up and fine, they get on with whatever task in hand, but! no matter how skilled or how well trained they are, no-one is perfect and may make mistakes or fail in some parts or tasks so what happens then? do they get thrown off the "job" and get benefit reductions? Not everyone is as capable as the next person in any particular task, no matter how easy it is. As for the H&S point, just supposing through no-ones fault, an accident occurs? whether it be a minor cut, slip, broken bone or god forbid a death, Who will take the blame for that? I know with industrial accidents they have to be investigated so who pays for that investigation? Will there be compensation for the accident? in today's "where there is blame, there is a claim" culture, this could easily put a stop to it all and im sure if this did happen, the "use" of unemployed people wouldn't last long. End of the day though if there is work, offer it to those who WANT to work and to those it will help, whether it be improving their skills, regaining their confidence in looking for a job or just plain helping them towards a better standard of living but by no means force anyone onto this kind of scheme. As to those who DON'T want to work (im sure there are many but i don't tar all unemployed people with the same brush!) then using this type of scheme will just be a waste of money as through disinterest and unwillingness to work it will bring no benefits to anyone and will just breed resentment and contempt as it did with the community employment program many moons ago. Tried and failed!!
equusdriving
06-Jun-12, 14:30
the media do tend to pick up on the exceptional cases & like many you pick up on this propaganda as a way of justifying your views without having to put any real thought into the matter.
Would that be the same as you saying that Independence would solve this? or quoting a removed verse from God save the Queen that hasn't been used since the 1700's and then ignoring that thread when challenged, only to move onto another whining "woe is me" chip on the shoulder driven post!
Actually it is going Alrock's way, some people have voted for Make them work but then added "For the going rate or Minimum wage at least!!
It seem's as though the only person wanting the Unemployed working as slave labour is the person who does nothing for this Forum except slag people off who don't agree with his English Tory idea's!!
God only knows what he is doing in Scotland, I am sure he would be more at home in the Epsom area !!!!
C3....................:roll::roll:
equusdriving
06-Jun-12, 16:11
Actually it is going Alrock's way, some people have voted for Make them work but then added "For the going rate or Minimum wage at least!!
It seem's as though the only person wanting the Unemployed working as slave labour is the person who does nothing for this Forum except slag people off who don't agree with his English Tory idea's!!
God only knows what he is doing in Scotland, I am sure he would be more at home in the Epsom area !!!!
C3....................:roll::roll:
Hello my sad little STALKER ! The Poll currently stands in favour of the unemployed working for benefits how is that going Alrocks way? and where have I said anywhere that they shouldn't get the minimum wage? English Tory Ideas? what because I want to hear the full story before signing up for Independence and cant see it curing crime and unemployment with a wave of a magic wand like you can? Oh dear cant keep your racist bigoted short sighted draconian views hidden for long can you, especially when you cant give plausible answers to questions. Do you really believe that you are doing the Independence campaign any good? with your hatred for anything/one south of the border as people will confuse your ridiculous bigoted views as that of the SNP which it clearly isn't. Perhaps you should focus your energy on promoting the real benefits of Independence rather than spewing the rubbish default answers to everything " that wouldn't happen after Independence" "incomer" "English" "Tory" "Westminster" and then when queried throw the rattle and go on to repeat the rubbish on another thread............................................ ................but please feel free to answer any of the many questions you have been asked on this thread and all previous ones, if you really try hard you might even be able to give an answer that doesn't contain any racist comments (however thinly veiled)!
Hello my sad little STALKER ! The Poll currently stands in favour of the unemployed working for benefits how is that going Alrocks way? and have I said anywhere that they shouldnt get the minimum wage? English Tory Ideas? what because I want to hear the full story before signing up for Independence and cant see it curing crime and unemployment with a wave of a magic wand like you can? Oh dear cant keep your racist bigoted short sighted draconian views hidden for long can you, especially when you cant give plausible answers to questions. Do you really believe that you are doing the Independence campaign any good? with your hatred for anything/one south of the border as people will confuse your ridiculous bigoted views as that of the SNP which it clearly isn't. Perhaps you should focus your energy on promoting the real benefits of Independence rather than spewing the rubbish default answer to everything " that wouldn't happen after Independence" and then when queried throw the rattle and go on to repreat the rubbish on another thread
And you should get rid of that great big chip that you have on your shoulder and stop giving us the impression that all English Incomers are like you, which they aren't thank God.
C3..............;)
equusdriving
06-Jun-12, 16:57
And you should get rid of that great big chip that you have on your shoulder and stop giving us the impression that all English Incomers are like you, which they aren't thank God.
CRAP3..............;)
Failed on all accounts again then? still no answers! and don't tell me all your English friends love racists bigoted fools ................oh no they wouldn't be your friends then would they
Failed on all accounts again then?
Yes you have, and altering my signature is very childish if I may say so. I have come around to the fact that you are on this Forum to score points so which team do you come from? I bet its...... ARSEnal !!!!
C3...........[lol][lol]
i would say yes, make them work for their benefits but at the same time, it should be to the amount they are paid in benefits. I do not agree with scroungers getting a free ride, but at the same time, i do not want it to be abused either. examples..
if its single parents, who have several children.. its a case of providing the child care, getting them trained.. and into proper work.
and also, people who have lost their jobs, cant or wont find work.. train them in other sections so they are able to work.. and help them find work.
there is always work out there if you are willing to do it.. even if its digging ditches.
not everyone is trained for certain things or capable of doing the work..
but i firmly believe if someone is able to work, and chooses not to .. and just lives on benefits.. train the, find them work, and if they still cant be bothered .. cut them off..
necessity is the mother of invention.. and sometimes it take loosing something before you learn from it.
again, this is based at the able bodied and minded.. who fall back on the i cant.... and dosent even try
changilass
06-Jun-12, 19:39
Surely if someone works, for a financial benefit, then they are employed by definition.
I thought if you were on benefits you had to prove you had been looking for work, and if you couldn't do this then benefits would be stopped.
You can't just have random folks doing jobs that no one else does as there would be a liability issue, it would end up costing more than just paying their benefits.
Here's a question: Should people forced to "work for their benefits" do essentially free work for private companies? Especially when these private companies put people to work on paying contracts.
to look for work.. all you have to do is put a resume in any shop.. had several peeps do this.. and often.. wasnt even the person putting their own cv in! then you can say .. yes put cv into this shop and that shop.. and if they want can call and check up.. which no one ever did btw.. as far as working for private companies.. if they are learning a trade or getting qualifications i dont see a problem. they are still getting paid, and getting work experience. How many young people.. work for private companies for free or next to nothing for work experience?
Here's a question: Should people forced to "work for their benefits" do essentially free work for private companies? Especially when these private companies put people to work on paying contracts.
Other than this particular dodgy security/event company (that should lose it's contract for the olympics IMO) the private sector are quite descerning actually. There are very few jobs these days that can be served well with gangs of untrained, low paid, random, job centre people. The reputation of most companies is worth far more than any short term saving made in such a way.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.