Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

chris9991 · 06-11-2010, 23:25

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11704765

It looks like the government is trying to reintroduce indentured servitude

If you don't do the work, you won't get any benefits. If people have to do this work surely its taking a job away from an employed person? Or are they going to take it from the community service of criminals?

**Maggy** · 06-11-2010, 23:32

Oh come on even I who view this government with some cynicism think that's overstating the matter.Picking up litter and digging council gardens is hardly punitive.

Mind the people who usually do it won't appreciate their jobs being taken over in this way especially if they are the ones whose jobs get cut..

punky · 06-11-2010, 23:34

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.

chris9991 · 06-11-2010, 23:36

But if they have to do work - how can they look for a job?

06-11-2010, 23:42

and of course the quality of the work will be poor

vanman · 06-11-2010, 23:43

30-hour a week for Â£65 thats less that minimum wage.

Quote:

The National Minimum Wage (NMW) is a minimum amount per hour that most workers in the UK are entitled to be paid. If you are being paid below the NMW you can contact the Pay and Work Rights Helpline for confidential help.

Â£5.93 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over
Â£4.92 - the 18-20 rate
Â£3.64 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18
Â£2.50 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/employme...ay/dg_10027201
is that not against the law
and all that money for protective clothing

chris9991 · 06-11-2010, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

30-hour a week for Â£65 thats less that minimum wage.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/employme...ay/dg_10027201
is that not against the law

They are the law!

vanman · 07-11-2010, 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris9991

They are the law!

that don't mean they can break it

---------- Post added at 00:52 ---------- Previous post was at 00:48 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

I

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.

Quote:

The Work Activity scheme is said to be designed to flush out claimants who have opted for a life on benefits or are doing undeclared jobs on the side.

look,s like they all don't sit on there arse

---------- Post added at 01:08 ---------- Previous post was at 00:52 ----------

went on one of these schemes in the 80s 16 of us got to sit in a garage all day talking.
as the forman was also unemployed.
3.3 million were unemployed
we got Â£10 extra on top of the benefits

07-11-2010, 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris9991

But if they have to do work - how can they look for a job?

the same way 'they' do now

- newspapers, websites etc will still be available ....

punky · 07-11-2010, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris9991

But if they have to do work - how can they look for a job?

For around 18 months I did a full-time job and looked for work. I'm sure they can do as well.

In fact with the right websites I can apply for dozens of jobs an hour. Some applications take longer and some chats with agents can drag on but they won't be working that hard they can't look for work.

And besides this is for the long-term unemployed. They already had a considerable chance to look for work themselves.

Mr Angry · 07-11-2010, 00:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

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

Who is it that you think "forced" you to work?

Why do you feel that the genuinely ill, who I assume you include in "everyone else", should be "forced to work"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

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.

Nobody "earns" anything on benefits - particularly not a "wage".

That aside, why do you feel that vulnerable people should not be afforded assistance in the shape of housing benefit?

vanman · 07-11-2010, 00:39

OECD 'concerned' after UK government axes job programmes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...obs-programmes

Quote:

The future jobs fund, which subsidises job placements for 18- to 24-year-olds, and the six-month offer, which provides training for those out of work for more than six months, were introduced by Labour but scrapped by the coalition government in its first wave of spending reductions.

punky · 07-11-2010, 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Who is it that you think "forced" you to work?

Because I am not rich? I certainly don't work for fun.

Quote:

Why do you feel that the genuinely ill, who I assume you include in "everyone else", should be "forced to work"?

Read the article again - it is the long-term jobless not the long-term sick

Quote:

Nobody "earns" anything on benefits - particularly not a "wage".

That aside, why do you feel that vulnerable people should not be afforded assistance in the shape of housing benefit?

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.

Mr Angry · 07-11-2010, 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

Because I am not rich? I certainly don't work for fun.

Sorry, I'll ask you again. Who "forced" or forces you to work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

Read the article again - it is the long-term jobless not the long-term sick

There is no distinction made in the article. Are you saying that the long term jobless, irrespective of the circumstances which lead to their being "jobless", should all be tarred with the same brush?

Quote:

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.

Sorry, point of fact. Long term "work shy" is your chosen terminology - not what I am referencing.

punky · 07-11-2010, 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sorry, I'll ask you again. Who "forced" or forces you to work?

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

Quote:

There is no distinction made in the article. Are you saying that the long term jobless, irrespective of the circumstances which lead to their being "jobless", should all be tarred with the same brush?

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"

Quote:

Sorry, point of fact. Long term "work shy" is your chosen terminology - not what I am referencing.

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 should not have to work just so I can fund those that don't want to. Make me out how you will with your asides - I don't care and won't apologise for it.