Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour - Page 8

chris9991 · 07-11-2010, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

Exactly how much travelling do you think the claimant is going to have to do?

For those living in rural areas it could mount up. Thirty hours, I think, would equate to four days work. Assuming that the work will be 'normal' working hours the claimants will need to travel during peak hours. If they can't afford to run a vehicle then that could mean four days of peak travel on public transport. If these claimants live in a rural area it would mean that the charge they face could be quite high, it wouldn't be unheard of round here for it to be almost ten pound a day. So lets say the cost would be Â£35 per week, considering the amount of benefit that gets paid out then that is a significant amount out of the total benefit paid out. With less money the claimant may then find it harder to fund job hunting activities eg paying for an internet connection

Gary L · 07-11-2010, 18:46

I'd say travel expenses will be met by the government. they won't expect people to pay that as well as working for no wage when you get there. it's almost a certainty that they will as it'll be a big argument against this proposal otherwise.

chris9991 · 07-11-2010, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

I'd say travel expenses will be met by the government. they won't expect people to pay that as well as working for no wage when you get there. it's almost a certainty that they will as it'll be a big argument against this proposal otherwise.

So the cost keeps going up?

Gary L · 07-11-2010, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris9991

So the cost keeps going up?

The costs will be high I'd say. and it'll probably be a bit like where it's cheaper not to send people to prison to save money.

07-11-2010, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

The costs will be high I'd say. and it'll probably be a bit like where it's cheaper not to send people to prison to save money.

I would call it investment in a future workforce ,we have a plentyfull workforce that just needs encouragement to get out and get back into a work habit

Gary L · 07-11-2010, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

I would call it investment in a future workforce

They probably will too. if one of them reads the idea to use.

Ignitionnet · 07-11-2010, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

You big Pink Bedwetter

I prefer libertarian or socially liberal fiscal conservative, but thank you, nicest thing anyone's ever said...

07-11-2010, 19:06

Here's an idea if the purpose here is to find out who is lazy and doesn't want to work why not offer this to any unemployed person for say Â£30 extra on their benefit and offer them some training and help to do cv's and interview skills. Then interview the ones that don't sign up for it asking them why because trust me genuine people will jump at that chance you will very quickly find the ones that are not interested. Come on we all know this is labour on the cheap hiding under the excuse of trying to find those who won't work. Besides in my experience you ask any JC worker and they can usually point out the career claimant or at least they could when they were run by the government and local people manned the places.

vanman · 07-11-2010, 19:27

be a lot easier to put the unemployed in the forces so they can cut their defence budget.
they can bring back national service and give them a shilling

**Maggy** · 07-11-2010, 19:33

I don't think doing some gardening or litter picking is the end of the world for those who persistently refuse to apply for work or who repeatedly find non legitimate excuses not to work, if they want money to eat and live.As long as it's short term and they get the message I cannot think it too bad an idea.If they don't then I assume their benifits will be withdrawn until they make more of an effort to find and keep a job.I think this persistent group is a very small number.

Also I don't want to see people who do this work normally losing their jobs as a consequence because it's viewed as a way to make financial cuts to council funding.

However if everyone is targeted like the ill and genuinely incapacitated then it does become punitive.It truly has to be aimed as a short sharp kick in the backside to the right group.

Osem · 07-11-2010, 20:18

I really can't see this being aimed at the genuinely sick or disabled. I can see it being aimed at those who'd rather not work if they can avoid it. Whether or not it's workable in practice is another thing however.

Stuart · 07-11-2010, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

I'd stick to the strict rules already in place that single out the workshy. where if they are not looking for work they have their benefit reduced or stopped. I'd do this so all the other genuine ones that are looking for work don't have to do what we associate 'criminals' having to do in 'payback to society'

if it means 'we' (I'm the government now) save some money then we've done our job. if we don't save as much money as we had hoped, then tough. I wouldn't victimise society just to make up for that money.

Strict rules that probably aren't working if the benefits system has grown to the extent it has?

Gary L · 07-11-2010, 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

Strict rules that probably aren't working if the benefits system has grown to the extent it has?

The rules haven't been in place that long. I think it's grown due to all the redundancies and lack of jobs, more than anything else.

**Hugh** · 07-11-2010, 22:09

Could you be more precise?

How long have the rules been in place, and what particular redundancies and lack of jobs have affected the figures?

Gary L · 07-11-2010, 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Could you be more precise?

I'll try.

Quote:

How long have the rules been in place,

Not sure.

Quote:

and what particular redundancies and lack of jobs have affected the figures?

All of them?