Forcing "scroungers" to take work

[MrMark]

They are already paid by taxpayer to do feck all, I'd rather see them do ANY work - sorting stones on a beach if necessary, if they don't like them they should find better job!

Well yes, but do you think getting someone to sign on once a fortnight (even though there are security guards and other staff there) is the same scale as having a team go with him/her and 20 others every day and making sure a) they do the work b) do not escape down the pub c) do not steal stuff/case joints?

Fairly poor stuff coming from the "make scroungers work" brigade - it all seems to be a variation of "put them in chain-gangs and force them to break rocks/pick up litter". If you're paying them to work, and you're forking out a fortune for supervision/guarding as well, it's going to cost a fortune. If you're not paying them it's just slavery. Isn't going to happen.

Now if you could get them to believe they're in a kind of reality show maybe Big Brother Meets Apprentice - maybe then you'd get them trying to work..Get Channel 4 to put money into it, and Bingo!l

[fullyautomatix]

I would rather the scroungers sat at home and drank lager all day to be honest. Any move to reduce their benefits or forcing them to work will result in a huge increase in crime. This generation of scroungers is a direct result of New Labour plotting to create a Matrix like population who will be dependent on the state and vote them in every term.

[MrMark]

They are already paid by taxpayer to do feck all, I'd rather see them do ANY work - sorting stones on a beach if necessary, if they don't like them they should find better job!

The point is made regularly, and eventually even you may begin to understand. There aren't the number of jobs in normal society for them "to find better job". Already these jobs get 100+ applicants. The few places hiring are not going to hire someone who is that demotivated + no experience + probably won't even turn up on the first day. Not when they have 100+ motivated people to choose from - and if that doesn't work they can hire a Pole or a Slovakian, or get Cable to import some more Indians.

[shaunbhoy]

Ah, so subsidized work, financed by the tax-payer?

As opposed to subsidized sitting at home doing feck-all, financed by the taxpayer. Yes. Has the penny started to drop?

Heavens knows how much all that will cost!

No more than we are currently paying as the salaries would be removed from the army of papershufflers currently milking the state in pointless places like Connexions/JobCentrePluses, and handed over to the whip-cracking replacements.
Really not that difficult to understand.

[xoggoth]

I don't see your logic.

It might seem pointless during a time of high unemployment but the problem existed even when there were plenty of jobs and it has to be tackled for the long term. Even if some of the current bunch can't be moved off welfare that is no reason to carry on enouraging others to join them.

One assumes that those who really can't get jobs in the current climate despite reasonable efforts will not be penalised. Those that make no effort should rightly be penalised, not for being unable to get jobs but because they don't try. Any society that continues to discourage incentive to work as we have done can only go downhill.

As for those willing migrants, many do indeed appear to have a work ethos that we have lost. But why do you think we have lost it other than by not having to work to live as they have done? And how long before will it be those same hard working migrants adopt our ways? Try looking at the welfare stats for some of our former migrants, now British ethnic minorities. Some are among the very worst of the benefit recipients.

[AtW]

The point is made regularly, and eventually even you may begin to understand. There aren't the number of jobs in normal society for them "to find better job".

Then they'll have to do tulip jobs that no one else wants - get paid some money, maybe around benefit level, but at least they will be doing something useful for the money.

[MrMark]

As opposed to subsidized sitting at home doing feck-all, financed by the taxpayer. Yes. Has the penny started to drop?





No more than we are currently paying as the salaries would be removed from the army of papershufflers currently milking the state in pointless places like Connexions/JobCentrePluses, and handed over to the whip-cracking replacements.
Really not that difficult to understand.

I fear that you lack a sense of realism. Do you really think the bureaucracy will disappear once we start to introduce "you must spend time in a chain-gang if collecting benefits after x number of weeks"? Of course it won't - if anything it'll be far bigger - but we'll also have to introduce a vast army of supervisors/"Musclebound officials"(your words) to enforce all this. Remember you'll be supervising these people 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, instead of the current "turn up once a fortnight with evidence you've been looking".
Good luck with getting a government to introduce this at a time of swinge-ing cuts.
A better idea (imo) would be to have decent jobseeker allowances for those who've paid into the system over the years, and a decreasing amount after a long time without work.But I fear this would only increase crime.

[shaunbhoy]

I fear that you lack a sense of realism. Do you really think the bureaucracy will disappear once we start to introduce "you must spend time in a chain-gang if collecting benefits after x number of weeks"? Of course it won't - if anything it'll be far bigger - but we'll also have to introduce a vast army of supervisors/"Musclebound officials"(your words) to enforce all this. Remember you'll be supervising these people 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, instead of the current "turn up once a fortnight with evidence you've been looking".
Good luck with getting a government to introduce this at a time of swinge-ing cuts.
A better idea (imo) would be to have decent jobseeker allowances for those who've paid into the system over the years, and a decreasing amount after a long time without work.But I fear this would only increase crime.

Never said my plan was "realistic" due to the society we have created. However, I maintain that it WOULD work (or at least something like it!), were the political will there to follow through with it, and that was the point of outlining it.
And I doubt you would have to supervise them 8 hours a day. Set them realistic goals for the day then turn up at the end to see if they have been achieved. Simples. If yes they get a "tick", if no they get an "x".

[MrMark]

Never said my plan was "realistic" due to the society we have created. However, I maintain that it WOULD work (or at least something like it!), were the political will there to follow through with it, and that was the point of outlining it.
And I doubt you would have to supervise them 8 hours a day. Set them realistic goals for the day then turn up at the end to see if they have been achieved. Simples. If yes they get a "tick", if no they get an "x".

Ah well, if we're looking at "unrealistic" options (although things can move quickly) we could always outsource welfare payments to the private sector. If you pay private insurance and lose your job, then you can claim back on your insurance...Of course we can see the probable down-sides of this, but it would certainly save the state a lot of money.

[shaunbhoy]

Ah well, if we're looking at "unrealistic" options (although things can move quickly) we could always outsource welfare payments to the private sector. If you pay private insurance and lose your job, then you can claim back on your insurance...Of course we can see the probable down-sides of this, but it would certainly save the state a lot of money.

How about we introduce a scheme whereby everyone on the dole gets their name put into a hat each week? We then draw out however many names that we can afford to pay cheques to that week, and divvy them out. That way we can keep a lid on the spending, put it all down to chance if your name does not get pulled out, and also quite justifiably claim that the system is "fair".
Anyone that complains, just tell them that if they keep on, their name won't even be put into next week's hat.
Simples!!
Sensible policies for a fairer Britain!!