Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymmy
You don't seem to understand the logistics and costs as to supervising people like this..
1# There will be approval needed for supervisors
2# The costs involved and type of supervision needed will mean that these will not be the people who normally pick up the litter and will expect twice the wages of the original people.
3# The council will be expected to pay the supervisors
4# the original litter pickers will not be needed as the council have now a glut of litter pickers though they'll probably get more work from the one they just fired than a dozen of the new people who they don't pay for and don't want to be there..
50+ years ago I would have agreed with you but now everything is so compartamentalised (sp?) that it will be a drain on the economy and in the end is just a way of getting people off the unemployment figures 
Instead what they need to do is to bring back training, bring back support for new businesses and create the jobs instead of pushing people sideways into meaningless labor.. That way they'd have a hope of cutting off benefits to those who do nothing and they would then be forced into jobs that are there and not poverty |
I think people are looking for problems that don't exist ,most of what you say above already exists ,all it will mean is that there will be an extra workforce and suprevisers will have more men to get the quota of work done and since the LA's are always pleading lack of manpower for reductions of services then they will welcome it ,as will most council taxpayers
Anyway as you said earlier it's early days yet and the final system hasn't been worked out yet .I would suggest that any body put on these schemes may get a top up on their benefit to meet minimum wage ,which in turn begs the question as to why not just give them a job picking litter,digging gardens or cleaning graffiti anyway on minimum wage
---------- Post added at 09:49 ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L
But isn't there already supposed to be measures in place for these kind of people where they get sanctioned for not looking for work. when eventually they don't get any benefit at all?
or is that rule causing, or going to cause poverty and forcing them to commit crime to survive?
|
not sure about that ,but it was the labour gov that mentioned it and then probably decided to go the easy way and just keep giving people money cos it's easier than addressing the problem .This solution,i would hope, will only be meant as a short term money saving solution untill finances have improved along with the job market and real training can be given with the prospect of going into real jobs after the training ,plus it will have the desired effect of weeding out career claimants