«13456727

Comments

  • flower 2flower 2 Posts: 13,585
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flower 2 wrote: »
    I don't really see what is so bad about it?

    There are a number of issues with this - not least that the point of Jobseekers allowance is that it's there for people looking for work.

    If you're being forced into working 30 hours a week for £65 how are you ever supposed to find a real job?

    To me it seems extraordinarily exploitative and 'assumed' that everyone on JSA is feckless and not looking for work, when the 'problem' claimants are less than 5% of all people claiming.

    We have too many people on JSA because there is a huge shortage of work, not because these people actually want to be on the dole. This scheme will do nothing to help create jobs or help people into work, it just exploits and uses them for menial tasks such as litter picking - whilst not even paying them minimum wage for the said work! :confused:

    ETA: Not to mention the fact that we have examples of claimants being SANCTIONED for doing voluntary work and attending job interviews. :eek:

    Will a litter-picking JSA claimant be sanctioned for failing to turn up for his community service because he had a job interview? :confused::eek: I hope not, but it doesn't seem we can trust the system at the moment!!
  • Terry NTerry N Posts: 5,262
    Forum Member
    flower 2 wrote: »
    I don't really see what is so bad about it?

    They're making people do something they'll be resentful about.

    A resentful cook = spit, piss, spunk and shit in pensioners dinners.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No ones going to be cooking for pensioners, the government wouldn't pay for the food certificates etc and CRB check (£54 that would need to be involved).

    Basically those on the dole will be forced full time 30+ hours a week, for 6 months, to clean up dog much, graffiti etc
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flower 2 wrote: »
    I don't really see what is so bad about it?

    Here's a novel idea.

    If you want people to work full time doing a job, pay them a wage to do that job.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The 'cooking for pensioners' is nothing but a soft soap line to make such a draconian policy palatable. You fell for it OP.

    Basically people will be forced to work full time, for no wage, doing dirty demeaning jobs cleaning the streets etc..
  • flower 2flower 2 Posts: 13,585
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    There are a number of issues with this - not least that the point of Jobseekers allowance is that it's there for people looking for work.

    If you're being forced into working 30 hours a week for £65 how are you ever supposed to find a real job?

    To me it seems extraordinarily exploitative and 'assumed' that everyone on JSA is feckless and not looking for work, when the 'problem' claimants are less than 5% of all people claiming.

    We have too many people on JSA because there is a huge shortage of work, not because these people actually want to be on the dole. This scheme will do nothing to help create jobs or help people into work, it just exploits and uses them for menial tasks such as litter picking - whilst not even paying them minimum wage for the said work! :confused:

    Have they said it will be 30 hours a week?

    What are menial tasks?

    BIB.....Some people would rather receive benefits than be employed at the minimum wage to do jobs that need to be done by someone.
  • U96U96 Posts: 13,937
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    We need to get people out of their beds.
    It doesn't matter what they're doing to earn their benefits.
    Sweeping leaves,cooking or whatever.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flower 2 wrote: »
    BIB.....Some people would rather receive benefits than be employed at the minimum wage to do jobs that need to be done by someone.

    Well clearly the £45 or so someone gets on benefits a week is going to be far less that the minimum for doing such a job.
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flower 2 wrote: »
    Have they said it will be 30 hours a week?

    What are menial tasks?

    BIB.....Some people would rather receive benefits than be employed at the minimum wage to do jobs that need to be done by someone.

    Yes. Some of the examples given include litter picking, cleaning graffiti and as per the thread title: cooking for the elderly, apparently - although as Jol44 says, that one is unlikely to materialise for a number of practical/safety reasons.

    And yeah, a few people are happier sitting on benefits their whole life - but less than 5%, that means 95% - a clear, huge, majority aren't feckless layabouts and are on JSA looking hard for work. That doesn't mean the government should mess things up for all claimants.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    U96 wrote: »
    We need to get people out of their beds.
    It doesn't matter what they're doing to earn their benefits.
    Sweeping leaves,cooking or whatever.

    Pay a wage then if they are earning and doing a job.

    Forcing people to work for 30 hours a week for £40 in benefits with no rights that come with working is repulsive.

    I've got no issue with getting the unemployed to work, but if people work it's only fair they are paid a wage for the work they do. If they don't its nothing but exploitation and demonisatioin.

    This isn't a few hours here and there we're talking about, it's forcing people to do a full time job permanently for no wage, now that's not right.
  • flower 2flower 2 Posts: 13,585
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    Well clearly the £45 or so someone gets on benefits a week is going to be far less that the minimum for doing such a job.

    Does the £45 on benefits include all the other allowances an unemployed person receives?
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't really see what is so bad about it?

    "101 Recipes With Special Brew"
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    With time this will be rolled out to part time workers claiming benefits too I should imagine.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flower 2 wrote: »
    Does the £45 on benefits include all the other allowances an unemployed person receives?

    For many it simply would be yes, living at home.

    Anyway, I wouldn't even bother trying to do some dodgy maths to justify it, simply pay a minimum wage then there's no argument is there?!
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    U96 wrote: »
    We need to get people out of their beds.
    It doesn't matter what they're doing to earn their benefits.
    Sweeping leaves,cooking or whatever.

    What makes you say things like this though? :confused:

    What makes you think oh so many claimants are lying in bed all day at the moment? :confused:

    Most claimants are genuine - the focus should be on them, not a small proportion of layabouts - who quite frankly probably aren't fit for work for a number of reasons and have fallen through the system with relatively good reason.

    Would you employ somebody who was depressed, illiterate and a drug user? :confused: Most of those on JSA not actively looking for work fall into this category. Hopeless cases. I find it hilarious people are almost 'jealous' of this.

    Would you trade everything in for £65 a week (and lose your health and literacy)? :confused:
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's clear some want something for nothing. They want people to work permanently full time, for no wage or workers rights. That's not on.
  • flower 2flower 2 Posts: 13,585
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    Pay a wage then if they are earning and doing a job.

    Forcing people to work for 30 hours a week for £40 in benefits with no rights that come with working is repulsive.

    I've got no issue with getting the unemployed to work, but if people work it's only fair they are paid a wage for the work they do. If they don't its nothing but exploitation and demonisatioin.

    This isn't a few hours here and there we're talking about, it's forcing people to do a full time job permanently for no wage, now that's not right.

    Would you have an issue with an unemployed person being made to do a job that was available with all the 'employed' benefits?.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Would you employ somebody who was depressed, illiterate and a drug user

    And most of all - would you let them near an OAP??? :eek:
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flower 2 wrote: »
    Does the £45 on benefits include all the other allowances an unemployed person receives?

    Jobseekers allowance is about £65.

    Entirely depending on the situation they may receive housing benefit, although the amount is entirely dependent on the area they live in, and the property.

    In somewhere like South Wales or Merseyside housing benefit is not going to be any higher than about £30 a week for a single, healthy person.

    Obviously in London it's much higher because of the cost of housing, but that's a separate problem. You can't punish benefit claimants because of things outside of their control.

    There aren't any other 'allowances' as you put them. They get free prescriptions and the like, but so does about 50% of the country. Besides which, free prescriptions hardly puts food on the table, unless you sell your medication :cool:
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've got no issue with getting the unemployed to work, but if people work it's only fair they are paid a wage for the work they do. If they don't its nothing but exploitation and demonisatioin.

    This isn't a few hours here and there we're talking about, it's forcing people to do a full time job permanently for no wage, now that's not right.

    See under "slavery"...
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flower 2 wrote: »
    Would you have an issue with an unemployed person being made to do job that was available with all the 'employed' benefits?.

    No.

    If they're paid at least the minimum wage and handed the same rights as any other worker, I'm fine with that.

    I just have issue with forcing people to do full time work for no wage or workers rights.

    I'd say a little bit of voluntary work fair enough, but forced full time work for no wage, that can't be fair.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We have a minimum wage in this country for a reason, this seems to simply trample all over that and to be honest make a mockery of it.
  • flower 2flower 2 Posts: 13,585
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    No.

    If they're paid at least the minimum wage and handed the same rights as any other worker, I'm fine with that.

    I just have issue with forcing people to do full time work for no pay or workers rights.

    I'd say a little bit of voluntary work fair enough, but forced full time work for no wage, that can't be fair.

    I disagree with the word 'Voluntary' but I am glad that you agree that there are jobs that need to be done (with the minimum wage and employees benefits), and whilst searching for the ideal job, these jobs need to be filled.
  • NX-74205NX-74205 Posts: 4,691
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How can they still be eligible for JSA if they're being forced to do this rubbish for God knows how many hours per week?
Sign In or Register to comment.