Reply to: Forcing "scroungers" to take work

[vetran]

Have to do something.

Friend of mine a lorry driver was looking for work, plenty of poorly paid nasty jobs at low pay but it wasn't worth his while getting off benefits. Now employed and happy but it took 9 months. His benefits were being reduced.

Another was on benefits for 12 months as she needed £30k to break even. Now had to get a job because her mortgage interest payment benefit has been reduced.

and so on.

Suggest 3 months benefits if you have been working a year and 1 month for every year you have worked since last serious benefit claim limited to say 6 months.

Then you fall back to lesser benefits and always profit share on any house interest payments.

After 12 months on housing benefit you get relocated to cheaper accommodation/area if renting. No more 12 bedroom mansions in Notting hill.

Then a part of your benefits are tied to work. Plenty of work can be done, everything is set as piece work so no work = no pay.

Plenty of stuff we ship to India & China because its not economic to do here. Telephone interviews for data collection, Data entry, Fabric recycling,Plastic recycling, electrical goods recycling etc. All low skill high labour. Make the higher skilled jobs pay slightly more. No need for minimum wage. Make it attractive for companies to keep jobs on shore but because they have to train people who may well get a job they hire the best ones with a transition plan.

Maybe we can make tools for the third world and ship them to them rather than sending them money for the princes to buy BMWs..

[MrMark]

Cobblers.


Source: National Statistics Online - Employment

I know quite a few young people (my kids' ages) and those who want to work have gone out and found work. Some did not "apply for the job advertised" but knocked on businesses' doors and asked.

A friend of mine's 13 year old daughter has just got a paper round. If a 13-year-old can get a job, why can't some of the lazy sods who complain "there are no jobs" or say "yeah but over 100 people apply for every job" ?

Of course there is a hard core of unemployable chavs - they can do the community service jobs. Maybe that will help them figure out that they need to change their attitude and/or get better educated.

Yeah, that's right. Someone's daughter you know got a paper round...therefore there are plenty of jobs around...

still, we can always take that job off her, and force it on the chav. Yeah, that sounds sensible...

[Unicorn]

Does it have to be work ?

A few arguments here about could they/would they/should they do various types of work.

How about make unemployed people behave as if they were employed. Make them sign in at a job centre at 9am, noon and 5pm like employed people. To cover all bases you might need to offer shift hour options.

Same rules as employment, absence = no benefits, drunk 'on duty' = no benefits. You need to book a holiday same as a working person to miss a period checking in.

That's the stick then offer the carrot, training courses, actual work paying more through local firms/councils or whoever signs up to such schemes.

Sounds like big brother but given the amount some claimants are making why not spend some on breaking the lifestyle of sitting at home collecting the benefits.

Yes, some would still routinely 'clock in' and keep on claiming but it'd make spot checks and case reviews somewhat easier to arrange.

[Addanc]

Can some of the rabid r-ght-wing growlers here explain how this can work? Given 3 important points:

1) Any job that gets advertised normally gets 100+ applicants anyway, from people able and willing to do the job.

2) Any company worth its salt would prefer one of those 100 (or import a young good looking Pole if its Starbucks or Pret-a-Manger) to all the problems that would come with Johnny Chav

3) Monitoring and co-ercing Johhny into applying for jobs he's got no interest in doing, will cost Govt money. At a time when Govt cuts are needed.

I can see only one of 2 outcomes i) A lot of paperwork/bureaucracy added, to no outcome OR ii) some Johnny's really do have their bennies stopped, and they resort to crime to get by (and yes we know some of them already do this).

Problem solved, how about employing the Chavs as transplant body parts!

[Platypus]

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.

Cobblers.

The number of vacancies for the three months to September 2010 was 459,000, down 30,000 over the quarter.

Source: National Statistics Online - Employment

I know quite a few young people (my kids' ages) and those who want to work have gone out and found work. Some did not "apply for the job advertised" but knocked on businesses' doors and asked.

A friend of mine's 13 year old daughter has just got a paper round. If a 13-year-old can get a job, why can't some of the lazy sods who complain "there are no jobs" or say "yeah but over 100 people apply for every job" ?

Of course there is a hard core of unemployable chavs - they can do the community service jobs. Maybe that will help them figure out that they need to change their attitude and/or get better educated.

[Old Greg]

What I don't get is why this becomes such a hot potato at times of high unemployment - it's the wrong time to tackle it as there are not enough jobs to go round and the long-term unemployed are least likely to get them. The time to tackle it is when unemployment is low.

But... just like in the high unemployment years of the '80s, it is useful to those in power to create a narrative in which the unemployed are to blame for high unemployment. Otherwise, people might remember the bankers' and politicians' roles in the mess we find ourselves in.

[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!!

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.