Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

[Ramrod]

I suspect that the idea of this is to make proper paid work more appealing than the unpaid option. Get the long term unemployed (who have no intention of working) off their arses and into work.....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I suspect that the idea of this is to make proper paid work more appealing than the unpaid option. Get the long term unemployed (who have no intention of working) off their arses and into work.....

Say a claimant that was on this course. they turned up everyday on time and did outstanding work. work worthy of someone being paid a full weeks wage?

what happens to him or her when they go back to normal of not meeting the expectations of looking for work. do we send them back to do another 30 hours of outstanding work for £65?
(£170 if being paid the legal minimum wage)

or are we not expecting outstanding work from them in the first place, so we're actually eventually rather shocked that this and other persons are doing this constantly for a mere £65 a week?

[Jon T]

Speaking as someone that used to a) be an unemployed person on a back to work program, and b) as a supervisor of the same program, this has good and bad points.

The supervision element of this is vital to get right, people that are in supervisory positions overseeing litter picking and garden work etc with this client group are not equpped to deal with un-employed people, it's a different kind of supervision requiring not just supervisory skills, but a range of extra skills that you wouldn't normally use with paid employees. Using myself as a case in point, these skills can be gained if you're of the right disposition, so i'm not posting this as a negative or a positive.

As the the distinction between able bodied and the disabled, if JSA/ESA etc are to be replace with a single benefit then i'm not sure there will be any seperation at all, it'll just be a "you've been claiming for x number of months, you're going to do this". Also even if a seperation is achieved, more and more legitimately disabled people are being judged capable of work.

Even withstanding this, if I had been unemployed for the length of time that meant i'd be madce to one of these activities I wouldn't really have a problem with it, however, where is the office based option to all this? I am not capable of manual work, my balance and co-ordination is sufficiently bad to make me a danger to myself and others, infact i'd say my lack of balance possibly excludes me under health and safety. I would be happy to take part, and have done in the past, in unpaid office based work for charities and community groups etc.

In summary, what is being proposed is not a bad idea in itself, but the implementation may be, options need to inserted in to any scheme of this nature to cater for people that are not capable of manual work, but are capable of office based duties.

Also, if charities are going to take on some of this "work provision" then the government has to work out how to pay for it. I was talking to a director/trustee of one such charity the other day, whoose main area is co-ordinating volunteering in the local area, they has seroius misgivings surrounding their ability to provide such a proposed scheme, as according to the meetings that they have attended so far, there will no extra or very little funding/financial incentives for any extra resources to run these schemes.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by punky

Self-preservation. I certainly wouldn't work if I won the £113m lottery.

Indeed, neither would I. However it is you who "forces" yourself to work. There is an alternative but you've made your disdain clear by lumping those who are genuinely incapable of work and those who "milk the system" together as the "workshy" which isn't quite true.

Originally Posted by punky

Yes there is. It says "job-seekers benefit". Not incapacity benefit or other benefits. By definition via the government: "To get Jobseeker's Allowance you must be:

* available for, capable and actively seeking work"

A bit of forward thinking wouldn't go amiss. Jobseekers allowance is to be scrapped / rebranded as part of the universal benefit proposal. As the report says "The Welfare Reform White Paper, set to be unveiled in the coming week, will set out Mr Duncan Smith's plans for a universal credit to replace the range of benefits currently claimed by the jobless".

This is clearly not specific to jobseekers allowance (not "benefit" as you suggest).

Originally Posted by punky

I stand by what I say. There are people that literally make a careet out of dodging work. Deliberately sabotaging their CV, throwing interviews, getting fired...If they put as much effort into doing work as they do avoiding it they'd actually quite a lot.

I have never said that wasn't the case. I acknowledge that there are such people. It is you, together with Iian Duncan Smith, who seems incapable of making any distinction between them and genuine claimants.

This policy is a farce. It's a weak and ill thought out attempt at trying to be seen to be fighting fraud - nothing more.

Anyone looking at this objectively would see how flawed it is.

By way of example. All of the claimants affected (whether fraudsters or genuine claimants) will have to be paid the national minimum wage for the duration of any work carried out (an extra cost to the treasury). Are we to believe that by doing this work and taking themselves beyond the allowed benefit income thresholds that their entitlement to WTC, housing benefit, income support etc will be frozen - revaluated during / after the four weeks or is this simply a once a year top-up or bonus for those on benefits who are fit to work?

It's nothing more than a paper exercise which will, at every level, cost the treasury more money to implement than it will save.

Originally Posted by punky

I should not have to work just so I can fund those that don't want to.

As stated previously, you are also "funding" the ill who cannot work and those who are genuinely unemployed through no fault of their own. This is not a one size fits all problem and, as such, it is extremely naive to adopt a one size fits all position.

[QUOTE=punky;35118857Make me out how you will with your asides - I don't care and won't apologise for it.[/QUOTE]

I don't expect nor want you to apologise. I just thought it sad that you have evidently bought into the media campaign to stigmatize all benefit claimants as "workshy" ****.

Each to their own I suppose.

Originally Posted by Gary L

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.

A) who is being punished?

B) supervisers are already in place supervising LA work crews

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

A) who is being punished?

Those that have no choice but to go out and work 30 hours a week for a month for their benefits?

there's 2 sides to this.

I hate benefit claimants
well you'll be pleased to know that we are introducing a 30 day compulsory work scheme where these dossers will have to do free labour they'll get no more of your hard earned taxes. the message is a hard one.

I think benefit claimants are being exploited by this
well I can assure you that that is not the intention. we want to give these people something to do with their time. we know how depressed they may be from not being able to find a job in this depressing recession. so this will pick their spirits up tremendously.

B) supervisers are already in place supervising LA work crews

LA?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Indeed, neither would I. However it is you who "forces" yourself to work. There is an alternative but you've made your disdain clear by lumping those who are genuinely incapable of work and those who "milk the system" together as the "workshy" which isn't quite true.



A bit of forward thinking wouldn't go amiss. Jobseekers allowance is to be scrapped / rebranded as part of the universal benefit proposal. As the report says "The Welfare Reform White Paper, set to be unveiled in the coming week, will set out Mr Duncan Smith's plans for a universal credit to replace the range of benefits currently claimed by the jobless".

This is clearly not specific to jobseekers allowance (not "benefit" as you suggest).


I have never said that wasn't the case. I acknowledge that there are such people. It is you, together with Iian Duncan Smith, who seems incapable of making any distinction between them and genuine claimants.

This policy is a farce. It's a weak and ill thought out attempt at trying to be seen to be fighting fraud - nothing more.

Anyone looking at this objectively would see how flawed it is.

By way of example. All of the claimants affected (whether fraudsters or genuine claimants) will have to be paid the national minimum wage for the duration of any work carried out (an extra cost to the treasury). Are we to believe that by doing this work and taking themselves beyond the allowed benefit income thresholds that their entitlement to WTC, housing benefit, income support etc will be frozen - revaluated during / after the four weeks or is this simply a once a year top-up or bonus for those on benefits who are fit to work?

It's nothing more than a paper exercise which will, at every level, cost the treasury more money to implement than it will save.



As stated previously, you are also "funding" the ill who cannot work and those who are genuinely unemployed through no fault of their own. This is not a one size fits all problem and, as such, it is extremely naive to adopt a one size fits all position.



I don't expect nor want you to apologise. I just thought it sad that you have evidently bought into the media campaign to stigmatize all benefit claimants as "workshy" ****.

Each to their own I suppose.

You just won't admit you didn't read the article properly and and were wrong? This scheme does not include those incapable of work. Even if this unified benefits system comes in people still won't be able to claim incapacity benefit and job seekers allowance simultaneously. They are mutually exclusive. So i'm afraid the vision you have of cancer victims undergoing chemo and one-legged, half-blind people hopping being made to pick up litter while IDS stands there in a Roman emperor costume with a whip.

And i'm surprised you of all people appear to be suggesting I claim benefits through deception?

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by Gary L

LA?

Local Authorities Gary, Alternative and possibly the more correct term for Councils.


I still think some key points are being missed, few of them that instantly spring to mind is:

1) More people are being judged as ineligible for IB/ESA, not due them suddenly recovering, but due to the benefits system eligibly and assessment procedure changing. My mother in law is 90% blind, and has near zero feeling in her legs, but according to the DWP, she is capable of work. Two appeals and lots of arguments between the DWP and her consultants, the DWP have finally backed down. They have told her though, that when he re-assessment is due, she's is likely to have to face the same fight all over again.

2) LA's do have supervisors responsible for litter picking, gardening etc, but not on the scale you'd need running the program being discussed, and also as already pointed out, with supervisors lacking the skills for that kind of workforce.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Those that have no choice but to go out and work 30 hours a week for a month for their benefits?

there's 2 sides to this.

I hate benefit claimants
well you'll be pleased to know that we are introducing a 30 day compulsory work scheme where these dossers will have to do free labour they'll get no more of your hard earned taxes. the message is a hard one.

I think benefit claimants are being exploited by this
well I can assure you that that is not the intention. we want to give these people something to do with their time. we know how depressed they may be from not being able to find a job in this depressing recession. so this will pick their spirits up tremendously.

LA?

Life is rarely that binary/black & white, Gary.

We need (imho) to be careful about these sorts of things, because whilst the intention may be honourable, it soon descends into "work-shy" versus "hard-working tax-payers", and as we know from this forum, whilst it is easy (and often makes us feel better) to pigeonhole people into simplistic categories, we seem to end up putting applying labels to large numbers of people, when the labels actually apply to small numbers of abusers of the systems.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Jon T

Local Authorities Gary, Alternative and possibly the more correct term for Councils.

Oh. well they'd have to employ some more then.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Those that have no choice but to go out and work 30 hours a week for a month for their benefits?

there's 2 sides to this.

I hate benefit claimants
well you'll be pleased to know that we are introducing a 30 day compulsory work scheme where these dossers will have to do free labour they'll get no more of your hard earned taxes. the message is a hard one.

I think benefit claimants are being exploited by this
well I can assure you that that is not the intention. we want to give these people something to do with their time. we know how depressed they may be from not being able to find a job in this depressing recession. so this will pick their spirits up tremendously.

LA?

Look at it this way Gary ,the welfare system is rapidly aproaching the 200 billion mark ,we have to controll this figure and if that means people will no longer get free money for an indefinate period then tough ,if people think that being asked to clean up their own communities ,dig a few gardens for old folk ,or mow the roadside verges in your area (i seem to remember that you were quite indignant that your LA had stopped doing this because of lack of funds) is being exploited ,then tough ,i suspect that it is their own fear of losing the free ride they have been on for the last 10 years or so that makes people think like that .
Having said that ,if this policy does come to fruition,i strongly suspect that the devoutly workshy will find a way around it ,after all they have managed to work the system to their benefit for years ,and i daresay that some will continue to do it

[MadGamer]

I have been un employed since Oct 08 and hate it, I have applied for so many job and in all that time, have only had two interviews, (Shocking I know) and I just would like to get back into work and will take anything I can get.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by punky

You just won't admit you didn't read the article properly and and were wrong?

It's you who has read the article from a jaundiced perspective, not I.

It makes no distinction whatsoever nor indeed does it make any "mutually exclusive" reference(s) to those who are fit for work, those who are incapable of work and those who don't want to work because they don't feel the need to.

It makes a very clear reference to "a universal credit to replace the range of benefits currently claimed by the jobless"

Originally Posted by punky

This scheme does not include those incapable of work. Even if this unified benefits system comes in people still won't be able to claim incapacity benefit and job seekers allowance simultaneously. They are mutually exclusive.

They are mutually exclusive yes, but you missed the bit where the Employment Support Allowance crept in. Incapacity is soooo 2008. You see what they did there? They used the word "Employment" in the allowance title. Receipients of the Employment Support Allowance are also subject to a Work Capability Assessment. As such that particular allowance falls under the "jobless" caveat.

Originally Posted by punky

So i'm afraid the vision you have of cancer victims undergoing chemo and one-legged, half-blind people hopping being made to pick up litter while IDS stands there in a Roman emperor costume with a whip.

I'll not deign to address the specific sensationalization of Duncan Smith which you're engaging in in your attempts to try to belittle the genuinely ill but what I will do is tell you that beyond the rabid headlines which you have such difficulty seeing past there are many stories of sick people being "forced" to work.

It might also come as a surprise to you but there are many people who are one legged or half blind or indeed cancer patients in receipt of chemotherapy who elect to work. The will to work whilst suffering an illness or disability is not, to coin a phrase of yours, mutually exclusive to those who not in receipt of benefits.

Originally Posted by punky

And i'm surprised you of all people appear to be suggesting I claim benefits through deception?

That is not at all what I suggested, nice strawman though.

I merely mooted the point that if you felt that you were being "forced" to work simply to "fund" the "workshy" then perhaps you could take a leaf from their book simply give up and join their ranks. I never once suggested that you should perpetrate fraud by claiming benefits "through deception".

Still, at least we're making headway. You now suddenly appear to be able to differentiate between fraudsters and genuine claimants - that's a start.

EDIT:

As Hugh says above:

Originally Posted by Hugh

We need (imho) to be careful about these sorts of things, because whilst the intention may be honourable, it soon descends into "work-shy" versus "hard-working tax-payers", and as we know from this forum, whilst it is easy (and often makes us feel better) to pigeonhole people into simplistic categories, we seem to end up putting applying labels to large numbers of people, when the labels actually apply to small numbers of abusers of the systems.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Oh. well they'd have to employ some more then.

and who would we use to fill those vacancies ...mmmm let me think ...oh i know, the people who genuinely want to work will be able to undergo training to supervise the people who have to be forced onto the schemes

[danielf]

I'm in two minds about this. I don't think anyone should be forced to work for less than the minimum wage, if only to avoid taking proper jobs out of the economy and shifting them onto a second-rate tier of work. I'd be happier if people on this scheme would receive minimum wage (which would be subtracted from whatever benefits they receive and any surplus being paid out).

On the other hand, it seems this would not be a blanket measure, but rather temporary placements targeted at people who appear to be cheating the system. If used sparingly, I can see good sides to this. Minimum wage would still be a good thing though, and I'm rather skeptical about the potential for mission creep.