Should benefit claimants have to earn their money?
Mark1974
Posts: 4,162 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Do you think long-term JSA claimants should have to, say after 12 months, work for their money? For example, civic duties that councils are increasingly struggling to fund.
0
Comments
Why not?
because if there are jobs need doing they should be properly employed and paid to do them, not used as some sort of underclass of slaves.
Agree with these.
If there's a job that needs doing then help people off benefits by hiring someone to do it and paying them a proper wage.
I agree.
They went fairly quiet over the last year or so, but recently it's been non stop.
If there's a job to be done, then pay someone a proper wage to do it.
Also, of course the time they work should not exceed what they get in benefits, taking into consideration minimum wage.
But in this time of belt tightening etc and councils having to cut back etc, I see no problem with getting the long termed unemployed to help out, we've all had to make sacrifices etc, so why shouldn't they. They should only be unskilled jobs litter picking, graffiti removal etc and for the betterment of their community. Any technical jobs should of course be used to employ people.
But these jobs are already being done by paid staff, which if you make the unemployed do these jobs will, put these paid workers out of a job.
so community service for people who`ve committed no crime.
So for £72 Jobseeker's Allowance they should not have to work more than 11 hrs a week.
But they're not, how often do we hear that a council can't clean this or that because they lack the funds.
All I'm saying is that maybe the unemployed could help out. Many working people have had to take a large hit in terms of pay raises even pay cuts etc.
and many unemployed have had to take a bigger one when they lost their jobs and quite possibly their homes.
Well yes and these jobs are/were done, don't think the people that did them would like those jobs to be thought of as community service. But my point was that councils shouldn't use a scheme like this to get skilled people doing a skilled job for nothing.
True, but lets be honest we're not talking about them, we're talking about the long term dole hangers as they used to be called. People who have basically never worked, seem to breed like rabbits and offer society nothing in return.
The problem with this is it sounds a lot like the community service criminals have to do! I could understand why people on benefits may not wish to be forced to do the same things we make criminals do.
This is where I find it difficult to think how it could be practical, even though I don't really disagree with the initial idea. It shouldn't be for large companies who are profiting from it and it shouldn't be the type of community work that is otherwise reserved for criminals...
those are the jobs that people on community service are doing.
so as long as we only enslave the unskilled that`s ok?
"we" are if they have been unable to find work.
There must be nicer jobs that unemployed people could do, that maybe aren't so demeaning.
i don`t think doing those jobs is wrong necessarily just that a proper wage should be paid.
claimants are expected to do 35 hours of job searching a week too, if they`re "working" for their benefits where are they expected to fit that and interviews in?