Work placements for the long term unemployed

[tek-monkey]

Come on, someone had to start this thread!

Background reading here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11706545

I was only half listening last night when a news report came on, saying those on long term benefits would be forced to work 30 hours a week. TBH I couldn't be arsed with an argument, as sat opposite me was a long term uneployed person who thinks he shouldn't have to work.

Anyway, the way the report sounded was that all unemployed for over a year would be made to do 30 hours a week work. To be honest I disagree with this, as it will take jobs from those willing to work. Everyone will say it won't, but if so what are these people actually doing? I don't trust councils not to cut street sweepers, bin men etc. in order to use free labour. It turns out though that we are only talking 1 or 2 week placements, not really enough time to get someone good at a job to use as a replacement although I'm still sceptical.

So what do you think? Despite the outcry I thought they already did this! They certainly used to, back in the good old days

 

[shoes]

As much as I would love nothing more than to see the work shy forced to do menial work (by work shy I mean the work shy, not those genuinely seeking work) for next to nothing, sadly, I think the system is unlikely to succeed at all. So someone doesn't turn up and loses their JSA for three months? I can't see many work shy adhering to a 9 - 5 schedule.

Suddenly mental health issues will go through the roof, people claiming they are depressed, have CFS etc. Either that, or a sharp increase in small time criminals so people can afford to live.

I agree with you about councils though - in fact part of this legislation should be that no change whatsoever shall be made in the public sector to accommodate this scheme. The duration should be from the start date until they find alternative work. I think a 1 - 2 week placement would simply be a case of going through the motions, and back to the pub.

 

[tek-monkey]

Apparently a lot of the reason for it being 2 weeks is to disrupt the schedules of those actually working but cash in hand, force them out of the dodgy jobs.

 

[John Marwood]

For some, it is a fulltime job - looking for a fulltime job....

 

[basil]

For some it's a full-time job avoiding a full-time job or even a part-time job avoiding a part-time job....

 

[Jade-clothing]

As much as I would love nothing more than to see the work shy forced to do menial work (by work shy I mean the work shy, not those genuinely seeking work) for next to nothing, sadly, I think the system is unlikely to succeed at all. So someone doesn't turn up and loses their JSA for three months? I can't see many work shy adhering to a 9 - 5 schedule.

Suddenly mental health issues will go through the roof, people claiming they are depressed, have CFS etc. Either that, or a sharp increase in small time criminals so people can afford to live.

I agree with you about councils though - in fact part of this legislation should be that no change whatsoever shall be made in the public sector to accommodate this scheme. The duration should be from the start date until they find alternative work. I think a 1 - 2 week placement would simply be a case of going through the motions, and back to the pub.

Ha ha Shoes - are we not ahead of the government? We had this very conversation last wednesday. Shoes and Jc should run for government!

 

[tek-monkey]

The thing is they are meant to be available for work, so technically this shouldn't be an issue for them. I have no problem with making them do something, I'm just worried its a new way for the tories to undermine the national minimum wage. I'd be happier to just make them sit in a room for 1 random day a week with nowt to do but apply for jobs. At least that way you could be sure people aren't made unemployed because of it and by not telling them too far in advance what days would also disrupt anyone working on the side.

Can they still make you sign on daily if they think you are actually working? Pretty sure they used to do this.

 

[Gramaisc]

Get rid of your publicly-funded workforce and replace them with the same people, payed a bit less from different public funds - claim a success - no, a double success?.

Actually, I suspect it's largely talk and little will really happen.

 

[basil]

Get rid of your publicly-funded workforce and replace them with the same people, payed a bit less from different public funds - claim a success - no, a double success?.

Actually, I suspect it's largely talk and little will really happen.

Agreed, if unemployment rises sharply the the govt'll be flummoxed on this one........

 

[tek-monkey]

The more I look at this, the less I'm sure what they could actually do? Are there any charities that need a volunteer force that will be hard to manage? Really having trouble thinking of anything you could make them do that wouldn't impact on other people doing real jobs? Seems a piss poor idea to let out into the world with no substance behind it, for a change.

 

[gon2seed]

After not thinking and blythely voting yes, then actualy read the comments, particularly teks last one, thought about it alot, and think I should have voted NO!

 

[Gramaisc]

Really having trouble thinking of anything you could make them do that wouldn't impact on other people doing real jobs?

Probably wouldn't have that much effect - somebody would almost certainly have to do it properly afterwards - if it was necessary to do it at all.

Edit - supporting evidence here.

 

[tek-monkey]

After not thinking and blythely voting yes, then actualy read the comments, particularly teks last one, thought about it alot, and think I should have voted NO!

I voted yes because I think it would both motivate those that only get up on the day they need to sign on (I know people like this), and also disrupt the lives of those who actually aren't available to work and therefore should not be eligable anyway. Certainly those who work on the side should be stopped, if they are claiming unemployment they should be unemployed. You are saying every time you sign on that you are available to work, if you cannot attend these schemes you obviously aren't.

Its just what they get tham to do that bothers me, we don't want a slave labour workforce.

 

[John Marwood]

Another 30 heading for SFED's big society at the Stafford Technology Park?

Building firm ROK go into administration..

 

[Wookie]

Firstly: It's already happening. The difference is, right now the unemployed are being made to work in the private sector to make someone else money. At least under the new scheme it seems that people will be working in the public sector.
Secondly: Why "manual" labour? I'm sure there's plenty of recentlymaderedundant office workers who can work pens, computers, photocopiers...
Thirdly: JSA=£65. Working week under this system=30h. That's ~£2/hour. What's the minimum wage in this country again?

It's a genius idea, though. Make all the council gardeners, street cleaners, potholefillerinners etc etc redundant, then in a year or two you can make them do the same job for a third of the wage!

 

[tek-monkey]

For some, it is a fulltime job - looking for a fulltime job....

Out of interest, how is it some people can claim this when people with jobs seem perfectly able to find new ones? I must have had ten full time jobs by now, but only one was found while unemployed. All the rest I managed to get by applying during the evening/weekend.

 

[age'd parent]

When I was made redundant from GEC I had 5 months holiday and didn't even try to find work, when I decided to work it took me 3 days to find a job,
I wasn't choosy just can I do it and does it pay enough to live on, the work is out there if you want it.

 

[Gramaisc]

does it pay enough to live on

Shouldn't that be 'did'? Or has the retirement age been extended already?..

Secondly: Why "manual" labour?

Perhaps because manual labour is seen as low-class and fairly unimportant?..

 

[age'd parent]

does it pay enough to live on

Shouldn't that be 'did'? Or has the retirement age been extended already?..

Secondly: Why "manual" labour?

Perhaps because manual labour is seen as low-class and fairly unimportant?..

Yes should be did, I still haven't got used to being a pensioner/ex worker.

 

[John Marwood]

For some, it is a fulltime job - looking for a fulltime job....

Out of interest, how is it some people can claim this when people with jobs seem perfectly able to find new ones? I must have had ten full time jobs by now, but only one was found while unemployed. All the rest I managed to get by applying during the evening/weekend.

You kind of answered your own question I think but..

have you tried getting on a bus lately?