about time

[tierk]

Toht, you really have no grip on this, you don't live here, you don't understand the issue - let it go.

Why must you insist on making this sort of statement the moment anyone says anything contrary to your own opinion? Just because someone doesn't live in the UK they cannot have an opinion on an issue?

As you probably all know i rarely agree with anything that Toht posts and have been pretty vocal on multiple threads and abuse him regularly for his view points on a whole heap of issues.

That doesn't mean that he is completely wrong every time he posts, just most of the time

I think that both sides of this debate have valid points which need to be addressed. On a personal level i really always hated the idea that we have in the UK a "class" - i use the word class very loosely - of people in the UK who have never known anything but the dole all their adult working life.

In some cases this is warranted - sickness or providing care for relatives etc - and i do not think anyone in there right mind has any issues with these types of cases. The problem is with the people that are capable of working but refuse to do so.

On a personal level i am all for voluntary work for the long term unemployed, as a means, at the very minimum, to get them back into the habit of working for a living.

I have seen the effects of people being unemployed for long periods of time and understand that it can be very hard to get motivated after these prolonged periods with all the associated knock backs and refusals. A period of time doing voluntary work could, potentially, be good for them.

On the other hand i almost 100% sure that companies will abuse the system as much as possible, as several posters in this thread have pointed out. I am also curious to know just what measures will be implemented in the scheme to insure that the people that are genuinely looking for work are not penalised and what can be done to make sure that this voluntary scheme does not cause people to be taken away from trying to find full time employment.

I am highly skeptical, as a rule, of any Conservative initiatives regarding employment policy or benefit changes as they are bloody good at cutting stuff but completely dire at creating. I am also a firm believer that we live in a "social democracy" and as such should expect to carry the cost of people that cannot find work. However, long term unemployed people like i used to see on a daily basis when working as a postie out of the Croydon sorting office are an issue that need to be addressed.

 

[Thorwyn]

I'm not living in the UK, but the circumstances here in Germany are pretty similar. There is nothing wrong with putting up some pressure on long-term unemplyoed people. And some politicians over here (even the from the german equivalent of labour) are suggesting projects that sound quite similar to the one we´re discussing. However, in my opinion, the problem is too complex to apply such a one-size-fits-all solution.

In Germany, we have a thing called "1-Euro-job". Basically, companies can hire long-term unemployed people for a period of 3-4 months. Those people are then "allowed" to earn 1 euro / hour in addition to their regular dole. And guess what? Companies are sucking up those cheap work forces like mad, even laying off regular employees and replacing them with those people. (Of course, they´re not allowed to do so directly, but with a little "re-organizing the company structures", it´s not a big deal).

There are two types of unemployed people. The ones that are looking for a job but can't find one for whatever reason (age, gender, health issues) and the ones that don't give a shit. The first group needs support, the second group needs motivation. Neither of which is provided by such a program.

 

[MYstIC G]

And what about the people who get paid to do those jobs already? DO they join the jobless masses and get forced to do what they previously did for a living for free?

Sounds like two for the price of one to me. At the moment we pay for local authority salaries/contracts and for welfare.

I'd rather bin the do nothing fucks at my local council (we all have them, the ones that will get final salary pensions, drive executive saloons and don't basically do any more than anyone in the private sector) and have two labourers tidying up the local park and streets.

 

[MYstIC G]

No doubt Labour were too weak in this area, and too 'politically correct'. However the Conservatives are not known for being in touch with the regular Joe in the street. Heck Mrs Cameron is a viscountess, hardly 'down with the people' now is it?

So what, Alan Sugar is now Sir Alan Sugar but I bet he's likely got more in common with a local market trader than you ever will?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Sounds like two for the price of one to me. At the moment we pay for local authority salaries/contracts and for welfare.

I'd rather bin the do nothing fucks at my local council (we all have them, the ones that will get final salary pensions, drive executive saloons and don't basically do any more than anyone in the private sector) and have two labourers tidying up the local park and streets.

You really think that you'd be getting high class slave work from forcing your chav community to tidy the streets?

Expect to see; "F*cking useless workers" thread in a forum near you.

They wouldn't work with any interest, they'd probably do a half-arsed job at best and slack off every second they could. I'd even go as far as say that some of them might do more damage then worth, considering they'd be doing professional work with no training.

Unless ofcourse you monitor and educate every single one of these people, which is as useless as trying to monitor who's slacking and who's trying to find work, and if you're going to train them for the job, problem same.

You can always fake attendance, but you don't have to do the job 'cause you could just "suck" at it.

Still haven't heard one person here answer if they were willing to scrub toilets if they fell unemployed, for no extra pay and think that it's only fair.

or how does this sound;

"You know guys, hard working citizens, there's a group of people, doing nothing, just sitting there. They could be cleaning your streets, working on your hedges etc and it would cost us nothing! Sounds good right? Right!

We have a sh...bus heading over to pick these people up right now."

Sound familiar?

 

[Killswitch]

I wonder how many public sector employees working in more "menial" roles such as gardening, street-cleaning and so on will be made redundant as a result of this?

I mean, we've heard the "give people the right values, get 'em used to working" rhetoric, but is that really what's going on here? Cameron's "Big Society" doesn't seem to be too popular...if enough people won't do (for free) the work their local councils should be doing, then let's get some forced labour going instead!

My other worry regards the operation of the scheme. Presumably people will need to be employed to make sure the unemployed turn up and work their allotted hours. There will need to be supervision, work allocation, HR (handling of illness and bereavement), inspection of work quality, Health and Safety, training (COSHH and suchlike), provision and monitoring of equipment, vehicles and uniforms. Will the "volunteers" have the same employment rights as normal public sector employees? Will they have access to grievance procedures? Protection from sexism/racism in the workplace?

I can see this needing so many people to administer that any benefits would be totally outweighed. If nothing else, we'll need a Director of Benefit Recipient Reeducation on £200k a year...

 

[MYstIC G]

Performance related benefits, Toht. Besides which your wonky logic assumes that people who already have jobs do everything to a peak performance, which is just laughable in any event.

By way of example, around my way it's too much trouble for dustbin men to pull the lorry over to the side of the road even when there's space for about 5-6 dustbin lorries.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Performance related benefits, Toht. Besides which your wonky logic assumes that people who already have jobs do everything to a peak performance, which is just laughable in any event.

By way of example, around my way it's too much trouble for dustbin men to pull the lorry over to the side of the road even when there's space for about 5-6 dustbin lorries.

Nothing wonky about it. If you have a crap service now, you'll have even crappier service with forced laboiur.

Not to mention; performance related? Another few regular work violations there waiting to happen. Like i said, attendance doesn't mean you have to be good at -forced- work.

Unless you're planning a whole committee to evaluate every worker and pay them accordingly.

Even so, more trouble when the government notices "We'll we can SAY they did a poor job and not pay them, 'cause the taxpayer in his infinite stupidity will always blame the unemployed."

 

[ford prefect]

Nothing wonky about it. If you have a crap service now, you'll have even crappier service with forced laboiur.

Actually I agree. A lot of people simply won't want to do this, esepcially if they have never done this kind of work before and are used to working in a comfortable office environment. When you make people do something with little or no incentive and very little gain, before long many of them will do a half arsed job.

I think as a concept the idea sounds great, in practice the idea is not only flawed, but unfair on the individuals who will inevitably lose their jobs.

And then of course, we have to accept the fact that we are basically talking about community service here (albeit at £1 per hour). SO are we now punishing the unemployed for being for being a drain on society in the same way we punish shop lifters and vandals?

 

[MYstIC G]

Money is the incentive. Since money is the incentive in regular employment, I fail to see how your argument balances. Lots of people who already work for a wage do so because they have to, not because they want to.

There is no justification for giving a wage to those who do nothing.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Money is the incentive. Since money is the incentive in regular employment, I fail to see how your argument balances. Lots of people who already work for a wage do so because they have to, not because they want to.

There is no justification for giving a wage to those who do nothing.

And because they CAN work for their living. Everyone doesn't have the luxury of finding a job they can get. You really think others should be punished, because there's no obs to do? Force into free labour or cdeath? Also a lot of people already paid taxes so the government would help if they needed help. Those people paid for your sh*t.

How about we force labour EVERY other benefit too. Mothers, with fresh babies out of the bun, f*ck off with your help requests. You'll now have to work at a daycare center to recieve your nappy-package. Afterall, it was their choice to get one.

Schoolkids? Well now, i think they should come to school half an hour before school starts to clean the school, to pay for those chalk and such. Education isn't a privilage!

Scraped a knee? Forget NHS, you'll work at a hot dog stand to pay for a fix up.

 

[MYstIC G]

No. My argument is that those who CAN should. There are exceptions to everything... well except your ability to miss the point entirely and overreact which imho is fast becoming a constant of the universe alongside being born and dying.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No. My argument is that those who CAN should. There are exceptions to everything... well except your ability to miss the point entirely and overreact which imho is fast becoming a constant of the universe alongside being born and dying.

And where do you draw the line of "can" and "can't"?

Because if you're not too old, or sick, you CAN work roadsides which has nothing to do with anything said here.

I said they CAN work, because they could find a job. Not everyone CAN find a job.

Read it again; "And because they CAN work for their living. Everyone doesn't have the luxury of finding a job they can get."

With your eyes this time.

But hey, stick your fingers in your ears and hope this passes.

I'll be sure to mock you with this thread when A; you're cleaning some toilets because you happened to hit a rut. B; when you complain about the free slave workforce.

 

[ford prefect]

Money is the incentive. Since money is the incentive in regular employment, I fail to see how your argument balances. Lots of people who already work for a wage do so because they have to, not because they want to.

There is no justification for giving a wage to those who do nothing.

This isn't a wage - it is their benefit, nothing on top of it. Can you honestly say you would be happy to give up 40 hours of your week for a little over £40? I doubt it somehow.

And isn't that time they should be using to look for jobs rather than taking work away from people who already do that job for a reasonable wage?

 

[ford prefect]

Next we will be sending children down the pit at weekends to pay for the child benefit their parents are getting. We can beat third world countires too - lets get all those grannies knitting and knocking out cheap clothing and as for the disabled....

 

[old.Tohtori]

Interested to see the answers, because people can't use bullsh*t excuses, like they use against me, when someone else makes the same points

 

[Bugz]

And where do you draw the line of "can" and "can't"?

It would no doubt be constructed in the same way as the other means-tested benefits, i.e. disability benefit.

By the way, I would be shocked if this policy was not cyclically-adaptable (to qualm your concerns re jobs avaliable =/ jobs desired).

 

[MYstIC G]

This isn't a wage - it is their benefit, nothing on top of it. Can you honestly say you would be happy to give up 40 hours of your week for a little over £40? I doubt it somehow.

And isn't that time they should be using to look for jobs rather than taking work away from people who already do that job for a reasonable wage?

No, I wouldn't be happy doing 40 hours for £40 and that's why I'd get a job. I've been unemployed and when I was I went on a training course and got myself on a job. My doing so got the training scheme a rack of funding because they were going to get binned if they didn't place anyone soon and I've not been unemployed since. The system should support people back into employment not just support people completely. You're correct it's not a wage as they don't work for it, but it's a benefit not an entitlement.

Oh and shouldn't the people employed in job centres be able to match up candidates to placements or did I miss something there? Besides, who said it'll take away any jobs. What if it meant that a street sweeper had a slacker to help him lug his tools and equipment around. What if it meant that people who were already employed had more help and assistance with their work.

Also, nobody's talking about kids or the sick or the elderly, so stop throwing up a smoke screen and chucking out red herrings. You guys are so epic dailyfail pessimistic in your responses. It's sad.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It would no doubt be constructed in the same way as the other means-tested benefits, i.e. disability benefit.

By the way, I would be shocked if this policy was not cyclically-adaptable (to qualm your concerns re jobs avaliable =/ jobs desired).

In the case of disability ofcourse, but can/can't find a job is a different matter.

That would be up to the same standard that is now in place, and the current standard doesn't differentiate between unemployed people.

So you'd have the 55 year old, 40 years on the job, honest joe who got sh*t lcuk happen in the same toilet, scrubbing same shit, as the no-good 21 year old chav scrounger.

Does that sound right?

No, I wouldn't be happy doing 40 hours for £40 and that's why I'd get a job. I've been unemployed and when I was I went on a training course and got myself on a job. My doing so got the training scheme a rack of funding because they were going to get binned if they didn't place anyone soon and I've not been unemployed since. The system should support people back into employment not just support people completely. You're correct it's not a wage as they don't work for it, but it's a benefit not an entitlement.

Hah another case of these.

"Well hurr i found a job! They all should!"

Problem with that is, it's not as simple as "Just grab a job".

You're right in one part though, it's sad. It's sad that you fail to see the problems and only think with your "i'm a taxpayer" gland. The worst point to that is that you -actually- think, because you've been fortunate enough before, that you wouldn't be ever forced into this situation, so you assume it won't bother you, which means you're thinking out of pure selfish reasons with no interest towards others.

Why not make kids and mothers and such work too? Afterall, you're supporting free labour of all those nasty people who "take money and do nothing".

 

[MYstIC G]

Also, nobody's talking about kids or the sick or the elderly, so stop throwing up a smoke screen and chucking out red herrings. You guys are so epic dailyfail pessimistic in your responses. It's sad.

Why not make kids and mothers and such work too? Afterall, you're supporting free labour of all those nasty people who "take money and do nothing".

The above is a summary of why everything you post is utterly pointless drivel Toht.

By the way, it's ironic that under other circumstances, people who take money and do nothing can be known as "thieves".

 

[ford prefect]

No, I wouldn't be happy doing 40 hours for £40 and that's why I'd get a job. I've been unemployed and when I was I went on a training course and got myself on a job. My doing so got the training scheme a rack of funding because they were going to get binned if they didn't place anyone soon and I've not been unemployed since. The system should support people back into employment not just support people completely. You're correct it's not a wage as they don't work for it, but it's a benefit not an entitlement.

In a welfare state, benefits are an entitlement.

Oh and shouldn't the people employed in job centres be able to match up candidates to placements or did I miss something there? Besides, who said it'll take away any jobs. What if it meant that a street sweeper had a slacker to help him lug his tools and equipment around. What if it meant that people who were already employed had more help and assistance with their work.

I occasionally work as a volunteer advocate for people with mental illnesses, and that often involves disputes at job centres, they are a complete waste of time. You are also assuming that jobs exist that these people are qualified or able to.

Also, nobody's talking about kids or the sick or the elderly, so stop throwing up a smoke screen and chucking out red herrings. You guys are so epic dailyfail pessimistic in your responses. It's sad.

That was a joke. I'm the one that is supposed to take things too literally being an aspie

 

[old.Tohtori]

The above is a summary of why everything you post is utterly pointless drivel Toht.

By the way, it's ironic that under other circumstances, people who take money and do nothing can be known as "thieves".

I don't post utter drivel, you just take everything as seriously as a freakin android, then conviniently ignore the rest.

Funny that what i post is drivel, but what pthers post isn't, just because it's...surprise..me.

Fact is; if you were unemployed and couldn't find a job, you'd be miffed about this too(as you said). But because you're safe at the moment, you think it's the best idea ever. Care for some ignoracne with that hypocritical platter?

 

[Talyn]

I like the theory behind it, but they should take you off jobseekers and give minimum wage.

I've not worked since March, and it's not through lack of applications. If they now expect me to work 'for free' they can kiss my hairy ball sack.

I have no issues with them going "Here's a job, go do it.", but at least give me minimum wage for doing it and get me off benefits.

I wrote a long essay about how I'm not a chavvy scrounger, but fuck it, if that's how people percieve me because I'm out of work, I'm not going to change their perspective.

Anyway, I'd be happy to do some kind of job (for pay, not for benefits), but while I have an option of a 'choice' (working in something I already have skills for) then I'm going to keep looking.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'd take any job at the moment too, but not for benefits alone.

 

[Bahumat]

I'm lost as to how this will affect me. I have been unemployed almost a year now. I have 5 years IT experience within 1st level support, a little 2nd line and some web support, but because I had no certification etc, I was a 'higher risk' client as one agency told me.

I look for jobs every day and apply to both local/london vacancies. Also I used some of my redundancy to pay for an MCITP course which I am studying (was previously doing a CompTIA A+).

I am long term unemployed, but I have a dilemma. I don't expect to be able to walk into an office job, but if I got one doing say, reception? or something which does not require loads and loads of training, I somewhat shoot myself in the foot. The reason being when IT agencies ask how soon I can work, I have to say 2-4weeks depending on my contract etc. I dread to think what an employer would think when they say "What have you been doing recently?" "Oh, cleaning toilets" lol.

I feel I am trying to find work, so I dont think I should be punished. I think the people who just sit about all day finding excused why they cant work should be punished...but how do you prove/decide who those people are?

 

[Killswitch]

I'm lost as to how this will affect me. I have been unemployed almost a year now. I have 5 years IT experience within 1st level support, a little 2nd line and some web support, but because I had no certification etc, I was a 'higher risk' client as one agency told me.

I look for jobs every day and apply to both local/london vacancies. Also I used some of my redundancy to pay for an MCITP course which I am studying (was previously doing a CompTIA A+).

I am long term unemployed, but I have a dilemma. I don't expect to be able to walk into an office job, but if I got one doing say, reception? or something which does not require loads and loads of training, I somewhat shoot myself in the foot. The reason being when IT agencies ask how soon I can work, I have to say 2-4weeks depending on my contract etc. I dread to think what an employer would think when they say "What have you been doing recently?" "Oh, cleaning toilets" lol.

I feel I am trying to find work, so I dont think I should be punished. I think the people who just sit about all day finding excused why they cant work should be punished...but how do you prove/decide who those people are?

Makes me feel guilty for complaining that my jobs sucks...hope you find something before Uncle Dave puts you to work on his coffee plantation or something.

Never looked at those A+ certs...what kind of level are they at? Probably not much use for me, but have a relative who's unemployed and working through a few certs at the moment.

 

[Bahumat]

The A+ one seems pointless. I was given it for free to fill in any gaps before tackling the MCITP.

A+ seems to teach you a bit of everything, but the dummy exams focus on retarded questions such as "How long is the signal strength on a <random cable>". Or what are the dimensions of a motherboard! should you apply CPR if a DR is not present, which statement is passive aggressive etc etc.

Oh and you have to learn things which are really really dated lol.

Thanks for the kind words Killswitch

 

[tierk]

I ahve met many people over the years, totally unskilled and ill prepared for the work place - in terms of education /training - who ahve been unemployed for years and i mean years.

When you ask them why they do not get a job, the stock answer is that the kind of work they would be offered will be paying such a shitty wage that it makes no sense for them to leave benefits and work for exactly the same money.

In social democracies as much as it burns everyone's - taxpayers - collective arses this is the way it works. There will always be a hardcore element of people that do not want to work, always has been and always will be.

On the other hand more must be done to try and fix the problems faced by the people that are seriously long term unemployed. If you have been off work for a year or two and for exmaple are a IT blah blah blah, then clearly something is wrong if you cant find work in that field.

Regardless of it being a problem in the industry or the individual after 1-2 years maybe its time to try something else as clearly something is wrong?

If i have been out of work for 1-2 years i would not find it unacceptable to do a month of voluntary work, so long as i do not feel that i am being exploited and there are safe guards in place to stop companies abusing the system fine. I mean really i would be getting money for doing nothing otherwise. You might also, through the voluntary work, find or meet someone outside my normal circle of friends /acquaintances who could point me to a job.

 

[Olgaline]

Another problem that I often come acroos is people who feel cirtian jobs are beneath them, and thus choose to stay on wealfare, often I wonder if these people actually grasp the idea behind wealfare, it's not ment to be a sleepy cushion for you to sit on until the "right" job comes along, rather it's a "last line of defence" to prevent you from falling flat on your ass.. and thus! you should be willing to take anything thats offered to you....and from there and on your own time seek a job thats more to your liking.

 

[MYstIC G]

In social democracies as much as it burns everyone's - taxpayers - collective arses this is the way it works. There will always be a hardcore element of people that do not want to work, always has been and always will be.

Correct, which is why the issue has to be forced. It won't ever resolve itself.

By way of shitty comparison we only have jails because people don't want to behave. If they want out early they have to evidence they've been better behaved. Why can't this apply to people on Job Seekers? I'm sure for example someone like Bahumat could demonstrate how many positions he'd applied for over a given period by keeping copy letters, etc.

Oh and if it was a joke ford prefect clue us in with a smiley next time I'm kinda glad it is a joke, as it's shown that Toht basically just spouts the opposite of anything stated