Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

[Derek]

Originally Posted by chris9991

It looks like the government is trying to reintroduce indentured servitude

Funny, to me it looks like they are trying to remove the ability of some to choose benefits as a lifestyle choice and who don't contribute anything.

Personally I think it's a great idea.

[chris9991]

I wonder who's going to pay for the travelling costs to get to this work. I can't imagine genuine claimants having much money to do so. I think they'd rather spend it on surviving and trying to get a job

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by punky

I'm forced to work, why shouldn't everyone else be too?

I'd like to sit on my arse all day earning a nice wage through benefits with a free house but unfortunately I have to work instead.

I know how you feel

Originally Posted by chris9991

I wonder who's going to pay for the travelling costs to get to this work. I can't imagine genuine claimants having much money to do so. I think they'd rather spend it on surviving and trying to get a job

What travel costs ? picking litter and doing a bit gardening or removing graffiti can be done locally .

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by martyh

What travel costs ? picking litter and doing a bit gardening or removing graffiti can be done locally .

Yet these will have to be supervised.. So that'll mean a few centres dealing in every county..

I can understand making people do these jobs if they are long term but what about the people who already do these jobs for the council?? Also what about the requirement to look for work whilst signing on?? Surely all this will do is put them in a never ending loop of menial work to get dole, unable to find work due to doing menial work for the dole..

Not really well thought out but still in it's early days

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Yet these will have to be supervised.. So that'll mean a few centres dealing in every county..

I can understand making people do these jobs if they are long term but what about the people who already do these jobs for the council?? Also what about the requirement to look for work whilst signing on?? Surely all this will do is put them in a never ending loop of menial work to get dole, unable to find work due to doing menial work for the dole..

Not really well thought out but still in it's early days

yes i daresay they will have to be supervised ..by the same supervisors who already supervise rubbish collectors ,what about the people who already do these jobs ? do you think that they are all going to be sacked ?all it will mean is there will be more litter pickers ,more graffiti will get cleaned and more council gardens will get dug ,i realy can't understand peoples objections .As long as we don't stigmatise ALL unemployed people i don't have a problem with this at all

[Ramrod]

Brilliant idea
Litter picking would be a good start. Perhaps then they will stop littering when they have to pick it up themselves.....

[Gary L]

I think it's stupid. it exploits the unemployed. you can't make someone work for 30 hours a week for 4 weeks for their benefit, where the same work would have to be paid a minimum wage to anyone else or would be done by someone as a punishment.

the people they put on this punishment course will just prat around. if they abuse the public for staring and pointing will they get hit over the head by a supervisor? will they be allowed to speak to the public? will they have to wear an identifying orange label on their back saying 'claimant sponger'? will they be looked at with disgust by the working class?

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by martyh

yes i daresay they will have to be supervised ..by the same supervisors who already supervise rubbish collectors ,what about the people who already do these jobs ? do you think that they are all going to be sacked ?all it will mean is there will be more litter pickers ,more graffiti will get cleaned and more council gardens will get dug ,i realy can't understand peoples objections .As long as we don't stigmatise ALL unemployed people i don't have a problem with this at all

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

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by punky

Again - read the article. This isn't about sick or "vunerable" people. It is the long-term work shy that won't work because they know the government will give still give them money if they don't.

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?

[jamiefrost]

Can't see much wrong with this.

It's a 4 week placement to do community work for charities and local councils. If it's targeted at people believed to be sabotaging their chances of work then all the better.

Where's the problem of getting people to put something back into the community while they are receiving benefits. Allowances need to be made for people looking after children, working during school hours only for example.

JJ

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 ----------

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

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by jamiefrost

Can't see much wrong with this.

It's a 4 week placement to do community work for charities and local councils. If it's targeted at people believed to be sabotaging their chances of work then all the better.

But what about them losing their benefit completely, the original tough sanctions? will we think it's ok for them to carry on claiming and having no intention of finding work because they've done some free labour?

do these people go back to the original rules and sanctions after they've done the 4 weeks, or do they now have the publics blessing of trouble free benefits?

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 ----------

The government will have to pay for wages, tools, protective clothing, transport costs, insurance, and a lot more.
the people doing this free labour would be under the care of the government at the time. all responsibility would be with them.
they are prepared to fund this. and a lot of jobs will be replaced by the use of free labour which will and can make these positions redundant.

Anyone refusing to take part or failing to turn up on time to work could have their £65 Jobseekers' Allowance stopped for at least three months

This is in addition to the already existing rules of where if you don't look for work you will have your benefits stopped.
in those 30 days you won't be looking for work.
isn't it the case that there are already 30 days unpaid work placements on the government schemes they get sent to? and they are for people who don't fit into the "play ball or it is going to be difficult" catagory, but the 'it will give you some work experience and something to put down on your CV'?

unless we make the distinction between the two that the one is punishment, and the other is help.

I wonder what colour they're going to paint the mini buses?

Originally Posted by Gary L

But what about them losing their benefit completely, the original tough sanctions? will we think it's ok for them to carry on claiming and having no intention of finding work because they've done some free labour?

do these people go back to the original rules and sanctions after they've done the 4 weeks, or do they now have the publics blessing of trouble free benefits?

not really ,because if they turn up on time and do the work they get paid ,if they don't turn up they will not get paid ,simple realy ,all they have to do is get out of bed at the required time and go outside ,a strange concept to some but doable and if the same people still refuse to look for work then they will have to do it again ,and hopefully after going through this cycle the message will sink in that they will have to work so why not get training to do a job where they won't get paid a pittance ,plus getting back into the work habit counts for a lot

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

The government will have to pay for wages, tools, protective clothing, transport costs, insurance, and a lot more.

they won't be paid a wage they will continue to get benefits

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

they won't be paid a wage they will continue to get benefits

The wage earners will be those employed to be responsible for the dolers. they're not going to put someone who's being punished incharge of them.