Oddworld Forums - UK Government wants to force unemployed to do manual labour for no pay

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - UK Government wants to force unemployed to do manual labour for no pay (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=19787)

UK Government wants to force unemployed to do manual labour for no pay

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

Long-term benefit claimants could be forced to do manual labour under proposals to be outlined by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

He is due to outline plans for four-week placements doing jobs like gardening and litter clearing.

He said the message would be: "Play ball or it's going to be difficult."

But the Archbishop of Canterbury warned that the planned welfare changes could drive people "into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair".

Under the plan, claimants thought to need "experience of the habits and routines of working life" could be put on 30-hour-a-week placements.

Anyone refusing to take part or failing to turn up on time to work could have their £65 Jobseekers' Allowance stopped for at least three months.

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.

Reports suggest it will target people believed to be sabotaging efforts to get them back into work.

Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show tackling the welfare budget was "one of the big political challenges".

"What we are talking about here is people who have not been used to working having both the opportunity and perhaps a bit more of a push as well, to experience the workplace from time to time and again the vast majority of people in Britain will think that's the right thing to do."

The white paper will set out Mr Duncan Smith's plans for a universal credit to replace the range of benefits currently claimed by the jobless.

Under the scheme, job advisers would be given powers to require tens of thousands of claimants to take part in community work for charities or local councils.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: "We will shortly be bringing forward further proposals on how to break the cycle of dependency blighting many of our communities and make sure work always pays."
'Cycle of dependency'

Mr Duncan Smith said his plans were designed to reduce welfare dependency and make work pay.

He said: "One thing we can do is pull people in to do one or two weeks' manual work - turn up at 9am and leave at 5pm, to give people a sense of work, but also when we think they're doing other work.

When the government unveils its welfare reforms this week, there will be lots of new support for unemployed people - more help to find work, a new universal benefit to claim.

But amid the carrots, there will also be some sharp sticks. One will be the threat that anyone who has been unemployed for a long time who refuses work could be forced to do community work placements.

The Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith likes to talk of a new contract between the state and the unemployed.

Compulsory community work is clearly part of the bargain.

Danny Alexander, Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury, denied the plans were treating the longterm unemployed in the same way as criminals doing community service, telling the BBC's Politics Show the "purpose is emphatically not to punish and it's not to humiliate".

It was intended to "support and encourage" and to get people back into the habit of getting up and going out to work. It also meant those who did it could demonstrate their employability to prospective employers.

The UK has 5m people on out-of-work benefits and one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe, with 1.9m children living in homes where no-one has a job.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, expressed his concern about the proposed changes, saying: "People who are struggling to find work and struggling to find a secure future are - I think - driven further into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair, when the pressure is on in that way.

"People often are in this starting place, not because they're wicked, stupid or lazy, but because their circumstances are against them, they've failed to break through into something and to drive that spiral deeper - as I say - does feel a great problem."

Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman told the Andrew Marr Show she would have to wait to see the full details of the proposals on Thursday before giving her verdict.

But she said the government needed to understand that to get people back into work, there had to be jobs for them to go to.

She added that Labour would be voting in the Commons on Tuesday against plans to cut Housing Benefit.

There's nothing I can even say to this.

Consider that the Conservatives have expunged hundreds to thousands of public sector jobs since being voted in and our economy hasn't recovered enough yet for half those people to have a chance at getting a private sector job.

I mean, Jesus. This is just wrong. The man even issued a direct threat against the population of the UK.

So the people will only get benefits if they do unpaid work? In other words they're getting money for doing work.

Their actual plans sound draconian, but the idea of providing jobless people with something to do in exchange for payment isn't fundamentally terrible.

They should just create all these jobs then, jobseeking allowance means you have to seek jobs. So, people will fill the placements.

This is just the wrong way to go about things. It's too authoritarian.

This will fail surely? If it goes ahead there will be public outcry! When will we learn that this is the conservative ideology.

There won't be a public outcry because middle england believes that unemployed people are the makers of their own misfortune. I heard it just about every day on the radio in summer.

Seems like a good idea to me. I mean i can see why people might be upset by this, but still, good idea.

()

Nice ideal, but there are a number of problems with this.

First, I know from experience you only have to say you've been seeking jobs. I barely ever applied to the required six positions each fortnight (or whatever it was), but I managed to stay on the dole for at least a couple of months.

Second, there are still people who prefer to remain perpetually on benefits and not get a job. People admit to this, and given the imperfect fact checking mentioned above, they'll get their way.

Third, simply creating jobs that applicants have to apply for through the usual means of assessment (CVs, forms, interviews) won't ensure that people get those jobs. If they lack experience, familiarity and confidence applying for and being in a job, their chances are low.

If sitcoms have taught me anything, it's that there are restart courses, but I don't actually know what these comprise. I don't know how much more or less beneficial experience unemployed people would get under these new ideas that under whatever has been happening until now. I don't know what I really think about all this because I have so few details and so little understanding of the matter. But I do know that, as a pretty socially-left-wing person, this doesn't immediately sicken me.

I'm glad my parents could pay for you >_< MM.

Ah well, if they don't want a job, who cares, its the ones that are actually looking that I feel sorry for.

I agree with pretty much all of what Max said. Also, note that it's only for long-term unemployed and it's only for short stretches of time. Also note that many countries around the world, including Australia, have similar schemes.

I'd just like to note that I was extremely led in my moral indignation by the presentation of the article and the attitude of Ian Duncan Smith (Which I still find to be abhorrent).

A fairer article is here.

I still disagree with it based on the motives and principles behind it. Ian Duncan Smith made it very clear what he thinks of the unemployed.

crazy Mr Smith's attitudes aside. what most people seem to be hootin' about is how this would affect those poor innocents in mid-long term frictional unemployment, while still completely disregarding those intending to stay on beneficiaries indefinitely.

and for a plethora of economic reasons, one couldn't just 'create manual labour jobs' for the dolemonkeys. do you think he even consulted anyone before spouting this jabber, how this would affect [or be separate from] the demand of labour etc?

Only £65? That's... not a lot.

Is that weekly or fortnightly?

Alcar...

I really don't see why this is a big deal.

They'll get benefits if they work unpaid.

...okay.

So they're giving back to society instead of draining it.

The only problem this will cause is the idiots who will bitch and whine about their 'human rights' and still refuse to work. ...the only solution would be to shoot these people until the rest get the right idea.

Denmark has a similar thing, and I don't find it unfair at all.
Also mostly, the caseworkers are fair and really listen to people if they have special needs. Such as stress or depression. They have all sorts of placements you can be put in. If it's a normally functioning human, they go into a jobseekig course, and then later maybe labour. If it's a person with depression, there are special offers made for those.

Also there's a thing we call "a-kasse", which I don't know how to translate. But it's basically an unemployment insurance that will allow you to receive unemployment money without haing to do anything(except seek jobs of course).

So based on each individual person, the system is as fair as it can be IMO.
Of course it would be nice to have free money though(well it's not truly free, as its just coming from the tax money anyway).

Yea, there are lots of flaws, but I do feel that there needs to be less leechers(i understand that some people just can't work, I'm talking about healthy people who can).

I'll get me out of the house, at least.

Outside of 4chan I have never heard of this class of people who could work but don't, except in conservative speeches.

I am inclined to believe they don't exist.

()

Outside of 4chan I have never heard of this class of people who could work but don't, except in conservative speeches.

I am inclined to believe they don't exist.

Then you're inclined to blinding yourself to the world.

For example, one of my dads acquaintances fakes depression and stress until they let him get an early retirement. And keep in mind that danish retired people are supported by the state(they don't need to have saved up for retirement). He's healthy and normal though.

I don't care what he did though. I think it's funny when people manage to cheat the system, but I'm just saying that they DO exist. Some people are happy with just enough money to lead a mediocre life, so for them it wouldn't matter much if they just leech off the little money they get from the state. Then there's the whole other category who works outside the taxes(which is illegal in denmark at least).

Either way, my whole personal opinion is that the state should keep out of people's business, so whenever someone manages to cheat the system, I don't feel any bad feelings towards them.

But the system is fair IMO(although not in some instances).

()

Then you're inclined to blinding yourself to the world.

No. I'm inclined to not listen to shock statistics and anecdotes, and look for real proof.

Sounds like a pretty decent idea. I mean it's not like they're being forced to do anything. It's basically paying a really shitty wage to do really shitty work to motivate the unemployed to search harder for a job. Thumbs up.

Are we talking about imaginary jobs here? If it were that easy to get a job then there wouldn't be so many unemployed people in the first place. It's not a case of motivation.

()

Are we talking about imaginary jobs here? If it were that easy to get a job then there wouldn't be so many unemployed people in the first place. It's not a case of motivation.

In many cases it is. Also, it's a matter of people not wanting to take jobs that are beneath them. Well, with this plan, anything is better than picking up trash for 65 pounds a week, so they should be much more motivated. Sounds like a plan.

But it's the lowest classes that have the highest rates of unemployment?

i'm with WoF. its a slippery slope. if there were jobs out there that i stood a chance of getting, i wouldn't be working where i am now, because i fucking hate my current job. i don't want to risk landing on my arse with no job because i just know i'd be out of work for a considerable amount of time, and i cannot afford that.

i live in a very small city, and recently a supermarket was built. there were 200 job vacancies, and within the first few weeks they had received something within the range of 7000 applications, possibly more. i didn't even know there were that many people out of work in Lichfield. sometimes its not even a question of being qualified or motivated, its more to do with the sheer numbers of people rushing for one position. i really doubt they went through all of those applications for a fairly easy-to-get job.

Wait your from England? I thought you where bloody Texan. Today, something has died in me.

In other news: Something similar is happening where I'm at in that a new tescos is being built down my road (sigh) the thing is if it has ot happen then I might as well get an easy local job, the problem will be that a thousand people at least are expected to apply for jobs there, this is one of those tiny tescos as well.

Yeah, I've never been able to get a summer job, and I don't think that was due to any fault of my own.

Bullshit. There is a ten percent unemployment rate in Michigan, but I guarantee you that I could go out and find another job today if I wanted to. It would be a shitty job, but it's still a job.

You could easily go back to your first job of building the pyramids. Oldie.

()

Bullshit. There is a ten percent unemployment rate in Michigan, but I guarantee you that I could go out and find another job today if I wanted to. It would be a shitty job, but it's still a job.

So you're saying people on the poverty line just don't look hard enough?

uh huh

()

So you're saying people on the poverty line just don't look hard enough?

uh huh

Yeah, actually. Quite often they don't look hard enough, and don't put in anywhere near enough effort to actually get the job. And then they don't put in anywhere near enough effort to keep the job once they have it. I deal with this problem every day.

Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that it isn't.