Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by alferret

My issue is with the free loaders, if it means that others have to do the work so be it. Life is not all about screwing the system and its nice to see some payback.

My problem is seeing the innocent ones having to be punished just so the guilty ones feel a bit of the pain.

Originally Posted by Gary L

But it's all those that have been signing on for 12 months or more that have to do the 30 day work thing. that's why now I think you probably didn't know that.
.

It is very easy to get "lazy" when your unemployed ,to fall out of the work habit especially when the media is ramming down your throat that unemployment is going up ,companies are going out of buisiness .One of the ideas behind this scheme is to get people back into the habit of getting up and going out and doing something constructive ,it is much easier to want to look for a job when you are already active and in the working mindset

---------- Post added at 22:29 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

My problem is seeing the innocent ones having to be punished just so the guilty ones feel a bit of the pain.

gary ,nobody is being punished

[punky]

People need to stop looking at this as punishment.

Similar schemes have run in the US and have been considered a success.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2..._labour_f.html

While they have a different work ethic to us, it's not to say the scheme won't work here.

Certainly when I was looking for work, my hours were going down, I started working from home. I was becoming more adjusted to that than work. I started volunteer 2 afternoons a week but didn't really change how I felt. Then suddenly thrust into a full time job + 3 hours commuting getting up at 6:30am and in bed 3 or so hours after dinner... Its a shock to the system. When you are at home during the day you really feel the days go on forever. I was working but God knows what it would have been like if all I had all day was job hunting.

So I can certainly see the value of not allowing people to be too comfortable with beinf out of work. I know the difference it made to others to get out and do unpaid work rather than moping at home.

This scheme is only punitive if you have entrenched views to see it that way.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by alferret

Yea but the difference is the crims dont get paid.

I for one applaud the efforts of the current coalition to get the scrounging dole dossing money grabbing barstewards off their fat paid for by us back sides.

Why should I graft my nadds off to survive when these low life, free loading parasites have far more than what I have.
I pay my taxes & my dues and the **** that extract the urine get a free go at life. Sod them all and their ideals, well done to the current thinking.

How do you know they have more than you?

Not all the long term unemployed are workshy.

---------- Post added at 03:53 ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 ----------

Not one person defending this has commented on the min wage issue. Turning a blind eye pretending its not an issue?

Why does there have to be a natural assumption that this will not be welcomed by the unemployed and in doing that are some of you not doing them a disservice. As i stated before sometimes the biggest obstacle to getting back into work can be the period you are seen by an employer to have been sitting doing nothing this scheme if done correctly will help remedy that or at the very least remove that excuse from potential employers. I do have my concerns with some of what the coalition and certainly some of it's members have in mind in other areas but that is something for another thread. This if done right (thats the key point here will it be done right) does not have to be a bad thing and could be a very good thing for long term unemployed who want to return to work. Sadly for the career claimant i don't think it will make a figs difference they will simply avoid it by going onto some form of medical benefit for a while and play that cycle of jsa, esa kicked off back onto jsa for a period and back onto esa.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Not one person defending this has commented on the min wage issue. Turning a blind eye pretending its not an issue?

Marty has said that they get paid for the 120 hours (£700) when laws apply, from the £260 plus HB/CT/Prescriptions/etc they get on top. if applicable.

---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

As i stated before sometimes the biggest obstacle to getting back into work can be the period you are seen by an employer to have been sitting doing nothing this scheme if done correctly will help remedy that or at the very least remove that excuse from potential employers.

But won't the employers know that this period of work activity was compulsory? they won't necessarily see it as you volunteered to get out there and do something with your time.

they could ask if you enjoyed it I suppose.

[Gary L]

First we went for the smokers, then we went for the drinkers. then we went for the fat people, now we're going for the unemployed.

(quoted from what I heard on the Jeremy Vine radio show)

soon we'll be going for the tax evaders. who incidently lose us more money than the others we went for.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Gary L

First we went for the smokers, then we went for the drinkers. then we went for the fat people, now we're going for the unemployed.

soon we'll be going for the tax evaders. who incidently lose us more money than the others we went for.

The sooner we go for sensationalist posters that refuse to listen to the facts, thrive on hearsay, have trouble understanding two sides of a discussion and are sometimes just plain ignorant..............the better.

Originally Posted by Gary L

First we went for the smokers, then we went for the drinkers. then we went for the fat people, now we're going for the unemployed.

soon we'll be going for the tax evaders. who incidently lose us more money than the others we went for.

I don't think you could devalue the Pastor Neimoller statement more if you tried....

You are comparing a genocidal regime with a proposal to have to turn up 9-5 for one month - you really need to get a firmer grip on reality.

Unless, of course, you are one those affected by the proposal?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I don't think you could devalue the Pastor Neimoller statement more if you tried....

You are comparing a genocidal regime with a proposal to have to turn up 9-5 for one month - you really need to get a firmer grip on reality.

I'm just talking about the stigma surrounding these groups of people. unless you're saying there is no stigma?

Unless, of course, you are one those affected by the proposal?

Not at all.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I'm just talking about the stigma surrounding these groups of people. unless you're saying there is no stigma?

Not at all.

So in your mind, your perception of the stigma = genocide?

[peanut]

My take on it is that I don't know what their purpose is. They say it will help people, yet to me I can't see them doing anything to actually help anyone (apart from themselves). This seems like a way of doing something about a problem without thinking it through.

I'm practically housebound, yet when they put me on JSA, I'd be expected to sign on (even that will be a struggle) and maybe have to do this work thing (this course or the real thing). What I don't understand is there are people on here that have said they won't, wouldn't or shouldn't put the sick to work, but if the sick are deemed fit enough (by ATOS) to get off ESA and onto JS then what's to argue. You're either sick or you ain't, or in their eyes there's no such person that is sick or ill if you are claiming jobseekers regardless of their illness or disability.

In the mirror today they've said it can't work, but will it stop them from doing it, I don't know, probably not. So I don't hold out to what their agenda really is.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So in your mind, your perception of the stigma = genocide?

Don't be so ridiculous. why you want to make the connection for I don't know. it's unfair and silly.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Why does there have to be a natural assumption that this will not be welcomed by the unemployed and in doing that are some of you not doing them a disservice. As i stated before sometimes the biggest obstacle to getting back into work can be the period you are seen by an employer to have been sitting doing nothing this scheme if done correctly will help remedy that or at the very least remove that excuse from potential employers. I do have my concerns with some of what the coalition and certainly some of it's members have in mind in other areas but that is something for another thread. This if done right (thats the key point here will it be done right) does not have to be a bad thing and could be a very good thing for long term unemployed who want to return to work. Sadly for the career claimant i don't think it will make a figs difference they will simply avoid it by going onto some form of medical benefit for a while and play that cycle of jsa, esa kicked off back onto jsa for a period and back onto esa.

Would you welcome it if on the dole?

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

The sooner we go for sensationalist posters that refuse to listen to the facts, thrive on hearsay, have trouble understanding two sides of a discussion and are sometimes just plain ignorant..............the better.

one thing for sure the government isnt revealing the facts, osbourne has already broken the new minister code.

---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:37 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

My take on it is that I don't know what their purpose is. They say it will help people, yet to me I can't see them doing anything to actually help anyone (apart from themselves). This seems like a way of doing something about a problem without thinking it through.

I'm practically housebound, yet when they put me on JSA, I'd be expected to sign on (even that will be a struggle) and maybe have to do this work thing (this course or the real thing). What I don't understand is there are people on here that have said they won't, wouldn't or shouldn't put the sick to work, but if the sick are deemed fit enough (by ATOS) to get off ESA and onto JS then what's to argue. You're either sick or you ain't, or in their eyes there's no such person that is sick or ill if you are claiming jobseekers regardless of their illness or disability.

In the mirror today they've said it can't work, but will it stop them from doing it, I don't know, probably not. So I don't hold out to what their agenda really is.

possible agendas?

1 - scare people into not claiming for benefit when they entitled to it, making the stigma and downsides very bad. Already many people dont claim when out of work due to stigma but this number is going to increase now.
2 - a way to kick people off benefit, if they refuse to do this.
3 - to save the council money by offloading council manual work onto claimants.
4 - class war, could be no long term plan but rather they just been ********.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

possible agendas?

1 - scare people into not claiming for benefit when they entitled to it, making the stigma and downsides very bad. Already many people dont claim when out of work due to stigma but this number is going to increase now.
2 - a way to kick people off benefit, if they refuse to do this.
3 - to save the council money by offloading council manual work onto claimants.
4 - class war, could be no long term plan but rather they just been ********.

Good points there.