more threats of a 6 month work placement

[leasky32]

what do you make of this, even though there is a couple of court cases going against this

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083871/Work-dole-Jobless-work-free-risk-losing-benefits-years.html

[wobbly]

Slavery! or maybe get all the unemployed to work for free,then get rid of paid employees and then set them to work for free after they become unemployed adinfinitum ,bloody hell best get rich quick scheme I have heard of yet.Them Tories Know how to make money!.

[jadeybags]

What do we think? 3 years is too excessive in my opinion. But as long as it pays at least minimum wage, it's all good surely. If people have to work 30 hours a week for 50 quid dole money though, it's bang out of order of course.

[Nystagmite]

And these people will get time to job search, contact employers, when?

[osdset]

The headline says 'End of something for nothing' it's only for nothing if someone has not paid into the system, what about the thousands of over fifties who are now long term unemployed because they have been effectively slung on the scrap heap? Many of these have over thirty years worth of contributions under their belts, the government are removing the over 50 element of working tax credit this year, which was one of the only incentives for older people to start up a small business.

If the legislation was aimed at those who have contributed nowt, I could understand and agree with it, to penalise people who find themselves at the bottom rung of society through no fault of their own, who have worked all their lives, who were made redundant in many cases by this government's cuts is morally reprehensible.

 

I believe this country is heading for social unrest on a scale never before witnessed, the unemployed, the sick, those with limited capability for work, the disabled, single parents, are being systematically disenfranchised and forced into penury, place millions into sub poverty conditions, and blame them for their own misfortunes, and you create anarchy.

The riots of last year were an unfortunate but telling precursor of what may well lie ahead.

[itiswhatitis]

Lets just remember its the Daily Mail reporting, they do have a tendency to slant stories to create maximum outrage / placatement for those of a Tory persuasion. You can expect that the actual proposed policies have been given the Daily Mail Spin Treatment in this article!

[frank_begbie]

I don't get it.

How is it going to save money if your working for your benefit?

[Nystagmite]

free labour?

[frank_begbie]

free labour?

 

Yes, the firms will save money on wages, but how will the government save money if they're still paying benefit?

[osdset]

Yes, the firms will save money on wages, but how will the government save money if they're still paying benefit?

 

By sanctioning those who refuse the work program, or stand up for their rights.

[Nystagmite]

Yes, the firms will save money on wages, but how will the government save money if they're still paying benefit?

 

Obviously, this isn't true for everyone - but sometimes, working tax credits are more than what JSA is.

[antone]

I'm not even really sure it's about money at all. I mean, obviously that's the pretext given, that and gaining "skills" and so on. If you look at the DWP budget, JSA is a tiny amount - HB is the elephant in the room. This is an interesting interactive graphic from the Guardian.

 

My own feeling is that it's an attempt to foster a particular attitude towards benefit claimants, and to give the appearance of "doing something" while ignoring the underlying problems that cause unemployment. Instinctively, you'd feel that the worst time to apply punitive sanctions to JSA claimants is a time when recession has pushed the unemployment rate up.

[Lilly_Monroe]

Noticed a comment on the Guardian pages, under the comments about the welfare reform bill - stating that Poundland had already let 14 young people go, as they had taken on unpaid JSA claimants.

 

Not sure if true, but this seems to be the way it is going to go.

 

Lilly

[jadeybags]

I think it's inevitable that'll happen. There isn't actually any reason it wont, yet. At our place we took on 6 temp staff before xmas, 4 of those were offered permanant jobs last week, as tends to happen every year. Although they all wanted to stay. The Czech lady & her boyfriend stayed of course. Businesses are under a lot of pressure from the government to meet targets.

[LaughingGirl]

I'm not even really sure it's about money at all. I mean, obviously that's the pretext given, that and gaining "skills" and so on. If you look at the DWP budget, JSA is a tiny amount - HB is the elephant in the room. This is an interesting interactive graphic from the Guardian.

 

My own feeling is that it's an attempt to foster a particular attitude towards benefit claimants, and to give the appearance of "doing something" while ignoring the underlying problems that cause unemployment. Instinctively, you'd feel that the worst time to apply punitive sanctions to JSA claimants is a time when recession has pushed the unemployment rate up.

 

Never a truer word spoken. Certain areas of the country have lost the plot entirely when it comes to private rents - it's a license to print money for a certain type of landlord. Had we been on HB at the time, our last property would have cost the public purse over £10k a year. There has to be some sort of regulation beyond the LHA, because on the South Coast and in London, the situation is out of control. Our last house was a desperation move, because the landlord prior to that was being repossessed - I have never lived in such a hovel in my life, but the LL was charging an exorbitant rent because it was in line with what the LHA has on offer. All well and good if you're actually on HB, but if you're not and you have to pay that out of your wages...well, I can see why some people can't see the benefit in working, let's put it that way.

[HannsG]

Yes, the firms will save money on wages, but how will the government save money if they're still paying benefit?

 

My understanding is that people on this new scheme will be doing exactly the same type of non-jobs that people on community service have to do. You won't be doing a real job working for a real employer, like those who go to Poundland or Tesco do.

[leasky32]

i just think this scheme is a total [problem], who in there right mind would want to work for a couple of quid an hour in this day and age in the uk, if when ever when at the work programme provider asks me about going on a placement i will be asking to prove to me, if i have any employment rights, i am covered under health and safety laws and am i covered by the companies i am at liable insurance, but if for some reason i went back to the place, ive worked at previously doing a placement, it would cost me more than a weeks benefit to get there

[numbers666]

Ok, the how about we adopt the american system ???

 

I for one will SUPPORT those that GENUINELY require government / social support such as JSA / DLA / HB / ETC. What I CANNOT support is the misuse of public funds, for those that frankly

cannot be ars*d to work or milk the system to their benefit. Why should unemployed received more in benefits combined than those on minimum wage working 40 hours per week ?

 

All efforts should be made to 'repay' the benefits granted and if that means working on placement for 2 weeks, then so be it.... a job may also be forthcoming for said placement.

 

The system needs to provide for those that do emphatically need support from the tax payer, and deny recourse to public funds for those that CLEARLY have no entitlement.

 

It is my belief that the whole 'cash' access on benefits needs to be removed. The JSA allowance is there to sustain life and provide the basics, not booze / drugs / fags etc.

Tokens should be used, limited to foods / utilities / clothes . ... all non essential items should be disallowed. It would be possible to set this up using a type of preloaded debit card....

certainly company credit cards can be preprogramed to only charge certain commodity types... cant see how this couldnt be set up ?

 

HB could be paid by the LA directly to the landlords. It would not need to state what account it came from, therefore not disclosing to private landlords the receipt of benefits.

 

Many solutions to a topical problem,Ii for one, as a taxpayer, am sick of being taken advantage of via my tax.... and if you think i am being over reactive,

how can my neighbours, who have not worked for 8 years, on various benefits, get a new 60'' lcd this xmas value 1k, and myself, earning 34k per year, not be able to afford to... ?

 

Oh, i spent a week in whitby as my holiday, they had 2 in the canaries ?? Something isn't right, by not working, only income being via the state, and a better standard of living than me...

 

I dont see this being resolved in my lifetime.....

 

c

[nyfle]

how can my neighbours, who have not worked for 8 years, on various benefits, get a new 60'' lcd this xmas value 1k, and myself, earning 34k per year, not be able to afford to... ?

 

There are numerous ways in which people on low incomes can purchase expensive gadgets and other tech. Go to any city in this country and you will find a certain breed of shop that will sell you the latest and greatest 3D flat-screen television - on credit! It's the catalogues of the 90s just in a bricks and mortar store (or Internet site, even).

 

Just because your neighbours have gotten a new television over Christmas does not mean they've bought it outright. If as you say they are on a low income, it is highly probable that they got it on credit and will be paying for it in installments for years to come.

[osdset]

Why should unemployed received more in benefits combined than those on minimum wage working 40 hours per week ?

 

They shouldn't, but it's not that combined benefits are too high, the fact is the minimum wage is too low.

 

It is my belief that the whole 'cash' access on benefits needs to be removed. The JSA allowance is there to sustain life and provide the basics, not booze / drugs / fags etc.

Tokens should be used, limited to foods / utilities / clothes . ... all non essential items should be disallowed. It would be possible to set this up using a type of preloaded debit card....

certainly company credit cards can be preprogramed to only charge certain commodity types... cant see how this couldnt be set up ?

There would still be a need for a cash element, fares for example, and how much would it cost to set up a debit card system? And who would pay for it? The taxpayer of course, I don't see this as a way of saving money, plus it would be yet another complication in a system that is falling apart as it is.

how can my neighbours, who have not worked for 8 years, on various benefits, get a new 60'' lcd this xmas value 1k, and myself, earning 34k per year, not be able to afford to... ?

I can't comment on your neighbours as I don't know their circumstances, but I do know that if I was currently on £34K per year I'm pretty sure I could budget for a 60" LCD TV worth a grand if I felt the need for one.

[caledfwlch]

Ok, the how about we adopt the american system ???

 

I for one will SUPPORT those that GENUINELY require government / social support such as JSA / DLA / HB / ETC. What I CANNOT support is the misuse of public funds, for those that frankly

cannot be ars*d to work or milk the system to their benefit. Why should unemployed received more in benefits combined than those on minimum wage working 40 hours per week ?

 

All efforts should be made to 'repay' the benefits granted and if that means working on placement for 2 weeks, then so be it.... a job may also be forthcoming for said placement.

 

The system needs to provide for those that do emphatically need support from the tax payer, and deny recourse to public funds for those that CLEARLY have no entitlement.

 

It is my belief that the whole 'cash' access on benefits needs to be removed. The JSA allowance is there to sustain life and provide the basics, not booze / drugs / fags etc.

Tokens should be used, limited to foods / utilities / clothes . ... all non essential items should be disallowed. It would be possible to set this up using a type of preloaded debit card....

certainly company credit cards can be preprogramed to only charge certain commodity types... cant see how this couldnt be set up ?

 

HB could be paid by the LA directly to the landlords. It would not need to state what account it came from, therefore not disclosing to private landlords the receipt of benefits.

 

Many solutions to a topical problem,Ii for one, as a taxpayer, am sick of being taken advantage of via my tax.... and if you think i am being over reactive,

how can my neighbours, who have not worked for 8 years, on various benefits, get a new 60'' lcd this xmas value 1k, and myself, earning 34k per year, not be able to afford to... ?

 

Oh, i spent a week in whitby as my holiday, they had 2 in the canaries ?? Something isn't right, by not working, only income being via the state, and a better standard of living than me...

 

I dont see this being resolved in my lifetime.....

 

c

 

Ooh a Daily Mail reader

 

I am currently unemployed after my third Redundancy. I am 33 and since I left school at 16, I have worked for 16 years out of the potential 17 years employment. My last full time job, I was paying taxes of £70+ a week! I have held other jobs where I have paid even more.

 

So you would like me to "repay" a system I have paid into for a decade and a half?

 

Nyfle has hit the nail on the head too - if your "scrounger" neighbours have a 60" television, it has almost certainly come from Bright House, Perfect Home or a similar company - they will be paying off that TV for years to come, with about 400% interest on top.

 

As an Insulin dependant Diabetic I struggle to feed myself as healthily as I need to, JSA does not stretch quite as far as the Daily Mail claims, especially with all the price rises of the last couple of years. A typical Weekly shopping bill went up by about £20, JSA went up approx £2! So you are talking complete and utter rubbish by claiming that someone on benefits is able to pop out and spend several hundred pounds cash for a nice telly.

 

You have also fallen into the same hole that right wing mail readers such as yourself always amusingly fall into !

 

You have pulled out the "booze and fags" manoeuvre.

 

If someone on JSA is spending most of their money on "booze and fags" well, those 2 items attract extremely heavy taxes, so someone on JSA smoking and drinking could very well be paying as much back into the system as a vegetarian puritan employed on minimum wage.

 

I shall let you into a little secret too - when my JSA arrives, I spend it on what I need, and guess what? Much of what I buy is taxed. Every single person in the country, regardless of income pays tax into the system, its not quite one sided.

 

I am a little suprised that being on 34K you are unable to afford a "nice telly" or a holiday abroad, you are on over 20k more a year than people on average wage. You must be absolutely dreadful with handling your finances, are you a Gambling Addict or something?

 

Your inspired Housing Benefit innovation? What on earth?. If the Landlord does not know who the benefit is being paid for, then how on earth will he know whether person X has paid or not? Housing Benefit is (preferably by the Councils) paid direct to the Tenant precisely SO a Landlord does not know a tenant is not working. Your system, a Landlord would not have a clue who was up to date on the rent, and who was in arrears, do you seriously consider that suggestion to be anything other than insane?

 

What if you lose your job? Would you be happy having to go into shops with a "DoleScum's Gold Card"? What the hell qualifies you or gives you the right to decide what people should spend their money on?

 

Holidays - I have seen weeks in Ibiza going far cheaper than a long weekend at Butlins, its one reason many people go abroad, its cheaper than holidaying within the Good Ship Brittania!

 

Did I get your back up with my inference that you must be a Gambling Addict, or very poor with your finances? Well, if you are qualified to sit in judgement of other peoples lifestyles and "assume" facts about them, you cannot complain when other people do the same to you.

[antone]

I am a little suprised that being on 34K you are unable to afford a "nice telly" or a holiday abroad, you are on over 20k more a year than people on average wage. You must be absolutely dreadful with handling your finances, are you a Gambling Addict or something?

 

I agree with much of what you say in your post, but let's not make it personal.

[LaughingGirl]

Numbers, I used to feel the same way as you and I do still understand where you're coming from. There are some people out there who don't want to work, that's a fact. Just not as many as the media would like us to believe.

 

I've just found myself unemployed after 16 years of uninterrupted work , and I can tell you now if your neighbours are going on holiday ANYWHERE it's because someone else is paying for it. Our entitlement works out at about £20 a day between three of us - when you take travel expenses for getting to interviews into the equation, it's actually much less than that (no, the job centre don't pay for people to get to interviews - another popular misconception). How in the name of Jay-sus people pay for gas and electric on this money is beyond me - in our last property, gas and electric via a pre-payment meter cost us about £40 a week during the winter, and that was using energy very conservatively (ice on the inside of windows of rooms we didn't actually sit in). That would leave us £130 a fortnight for food, travel and other bills. I'm currently paying £40 a month for gas and electric on an online dual fuel tariff - I'm not an idiot, this is a gross underestimation that is going to bite me in the backside when the actual bill arrives, but all I can do is hope I'm working when they hoik it up to £200 a month to cover the shortfall.

 

About the only thing I actually like about the situation is not having to worry about making sure my rent is OK - I told the council that I don't have a bank account so that the HB was paid directly to our landlord. I did that because I can see how easy it would be to dip into the HB payment when I'm struggling to pay for things. Another benefit is that we're all eating much more healthily - no more take-aways or snacks between meals!

 

I've said elsewhere on this or another thread, the biggest problem this country has is housing benefit for people living in high rent areas. If your rent is £900 a month, as ours was before we moved back up North (ish), I can see how hard it would be to see the benefit in taking a low paid or minimum wage job. I know that if you're on a low wage, you can still get some housing benefit but I also know from the experience of friends that this is riddled with problems. If you do irregular hours, take paid over time or generally do anything to alter the amount you earn, you have to declare it every time. I know people who've run into serious problems because of this, either by getting behind with their rent or with having to pay back over payments. The two people you least want to have problems with - your landlord or the government.

 

As for Brighthouse...given the 'spare' income I've demonstrated above, anyone would think their entire business model revolved around giving people exorbitant credit that they obviously can't afford, then repossessing goods to be resold to someone else who can't afford it. That's ludicrous though...no company would deliberately set up credit accounts knowing that they would fail so they could sell the same goods over and over for many times their face value. Oh, wait....

[caledfwlch]

What is frustrating too, is the Coalition are seeing the disgrace of how much rent is being charged in some areas as a housing benefit problem, rather than a rent problem.

 

So, in London, we now have "Class Cleansing" taking place, with local authorities force relocating people on HB under threat of homelessness.

 

What we need instead are strict rental controls in order to fight these landlords. EVEN the United States has rent control and protection laws in favour of the Tenants in many cities.

 

Britain is small. Very Small, considering it has a 60 million plus population, we have accomodation shortages, and frankly, im my opinion having a secure roof over ones head is an absolute right. And the right of having that secure roof far outweighs the right of anyone, individual or corporate to benefit from "investing" in that housing.

 

Along with rental controls, I would seize propertys that have been empty for a certain amount of time and convert them if necessary into social/low income housing. I would also start imposing an annual fine on Local Authorities/housing associations for each and every council/social housing property they have which is empty. This hopefully would then force them to repair/bring up to code these properties and move people into them.

 

We have a housing shortage, and yet there are something like 900,000 empty council houses! entire estates in some cases!

[Lilly_Monroe]

The problem is 'they do not pick on those who refuse to work' they pick on the soft targets, in order to keep their stats find and dandy.

 

They know there is nothing they can do with the long term unemployed, so they basically leave them alone.

In return the genuine people in need of help get lumped in the same boat.

No matter what forum I am on, when ever the subject of the 'unemployed' comes up - out comes the word...'scroungers' and far far worse, the media has done its job well.

 

If I was earning £34000 a year, I think I would be getting on with my life and not wondering how my neighbours could afford xyz!

Bitterness is not a nice trait, whether you are unemployed, working or what ever - and achieves nothing.

 

Lilly