U.K. Approves Slave Labour

[HBK-aholic]

Ministers now want to make ALL able-bodied claimants do unpaid community tasks in return for their dole.
The move follows the success of a tough new regime aimed at pushing the long-term unemployed into work.
Job centre staff have power to send suspected shirkers to join supervised gangs painting schools or trimming hedgerows.
Those who refuse to put in 30 hours a week have their £67.50-a-week unemployment benefit stopped. Next month the government will DOUBLE the number on the programme.
Employment Minister Chris Grayling, who set up the scheme last year, wants to extend it to capture thousands more he believes play the system.
And he has launched a secret trial in one area to see if tough sanctions can be imposed on EVERY claimant. An insider said: “He wants this scheme to be the norm, rather than an optional extra.
“They are planning to extend it rapidly from next month and have already found funding for thousands more places.
More than 18,000 jobless have already joined community projects or had their handouts docked.
But a study shows half of claimants would rather lose their cash than do unpaid work.

Or so the 'workshy' would have you believe. For those unaware of what Jobseekers allowance is, it's money coming from the taxpayer which is given to those 'actively seeking work' in order to help them until they secure a job. It's supposed to be a short term benefit, though there is no length of time until it is stopped.

As the quote above states, the Government is trying to start a scheme where those who are claiming this money are given jobs to do in the community as opposed to sitting at home all day, and getting money for nothing. People seem to believe the government owes them something when they're doing nothing FOR society, and that's unacceptable.

I understand that there is a difficult climate for jobs at the minute, and I sympathise with those working tirelessly to find a new position. However there are also those who don't mind not working, or who believe they are, again, owed a position of authority with a large salary, and won't even bother seriously applying for jobs which pay minimum wage, or are in a certain sector (Retail, Waste disposal etc), even though they may be better qualified for those types of jobs to begin with.

At the moment, benefit claimants just have to prove they are actively seeking work - many of whom get around this for applying for jobs they are too under-qualified for, or else 'throwing' interviews so they have no chance of getting the jobs on offer. However, under this new scheme they would also have to give something back to society in helping out the community, and refusal will show the government who actually wants to work and who is simply being lazy. This scheme also helps give other skills to the unemployed and shows employers who is serious about working.


On the other hand, many people are against this as they believe the amount (£64) is too little to do any work for. They believe the government are using the unemployed as slaves who would be working for little over £2/hour worked. They believe it is the right of the unemployed to receive this benefit regardless of whether they genuinely want a job or not.

I personally detest this view, as I feel £64 is too much for sitting around doing nothing. To earn £64 I have to be on my feet for 9 hours caring for those with neurological illnesses - no one has ever just 'given' me that amount of money for doing nothing. I do agree that maybe 30 hours is too much and the hours could be worked upon, but if 30 hours is too much, 0 hours is way too little.

 

[Loveless]

As the quote above states, the Government is trying to start a scheme where those who are claiming this money are given jobs to do in the community as opposed to sitting at home all day, and getting money for nothing. People seem to believe the government owes them something when they're doing nothing FOR society, and that's unacceptable.

Nope, they believe they're entitled not to starve on the streets. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I understand that there is a difficult climate for jobs at the minute, and I sympathise with those working tirelessly to find a new position. However there are also those who don't mind not working, or who believe they are, again, owed a position of authority with a large salary, and won't even bother seriously applying for jobs which pay minimum wage, or are in a certain sector (Retail, Waste disposal etc), even though they may be better qualified for those types of jobs to begin with.

So fuck everyone and tar them all with the same "lazy" brush?

At the moment, benefit claimants just have to prove they are actively seeking work - many of whom get around this for applying for jobs they are too under-qualified for, or else 'throwing' interviews so they have no chance of getting the jobs on offer.

I'd blame an ineffective system then.

However, under this new scheme they would also have to give something back to society in helping out the community, and refusal will show the government who actually wants to work and who is simply being lazy. This scheme also helps give other skills to the unemployed and shows employers who is serious about working.

These schemes already exist and have done for at least the last 10 years.

On the other hand, many people are against this as they believe the amount (£64) is too little to do any work for. They believe the government are using the unemployed as slaves who would be working for little over £2/hour worked. They believe it is the right of the unemployed to receive this benefit regardless of whether they genuinely want a job or not.

It's the right of the unemployed not to be made homeless or starve. Now if you want an alternative to paying money I think vouchers would be acceptable.

I personally detest this view, as I feel £64 is too much for sitting around doing nothing. To earn £64 I have to be on my feet for 9 hours caring for those with neurological illnesses - no one has ever just 'given' me that amount of money for doing nothing. I do agree that maybe 30 hours is too much and the hours could be worked upon, but if 30 hours is too much, 0 hours is way too little.

I'm not totally against making people do something for their money but 30 is and always has been, fucking ridiculous. Minimum wage is just over £6, so by my maths that should equate to 10 hours work. That would be fair. Forcing (and it is forcing as going without the money isn't an option) someone to work 30 hours in a job that will in all likelihood be totally unsuitable is unnacceptable.
This is not even considering that the employees can treat these employees like crap because they've got no choice. It's an awful idea

 

[HBK-aholic]

Nope, they believe they're entitled not to starve on the streets. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Nor do I, but I do think it's unreasonable to expect to be given the money for doing absolutely nothing - we need to ask ourselves why people would refuse to do this work if they're so actively seeking a job - surely doing something is better than doing nothing?

So fuck everyone and tar them all with the same "lazy" brush?

I never said everyone was lazy - I don't need to. They'll be separating themselves into categories of those who will work, and those who refuse.

I'd blame an ineffective system then.

The system is in no way perfect, no system is. I'd much more blame the people who purposely scrounge and do nothing else.

It's the right of the unemployed not to be made homeless or starve. Now if you want an alternative to paying money I think vouchers would be acceptable.

I agree completely that vouchers are a MUCH better alternative to handing people money that could, and sometimes is, spent on 'luxuries' such as alcohol and drugs.

In terms of being made to be homeless, or starve - if people choose that over doing a hard days work, they've made their choice, and are complete idiots.

I'm not totally against making people do something for their money but 30 is and always has been, fucking ridiculous. Minimum wage is just over £6, so by my maths that should equate to 10 hours work. That would be fair. Forcing (and it is forcing as going without the money isn't an option) someone to work 30 hours in a job that will in all likelihood be totally unsuitable is unnacceptable.

I'm not sure what you mean by unsuitable, but I do agree 30 hours is excessive.

This is not even considering that the employees can treat these employees like crap because they've got no choice. It's an awful idea

In the current climate, most employers could treat their employees like crap as they have to be their to earn money, in the same way those on Jobseekers have to. There's a possibility of abuse in almost every scenario possible, I'd hope the Government had safeguards in place to stop anything like that happening, but to stop a good idea based on possible abuse by some people is silly, and that frame of mind could stop almost anything.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I think this is what is referred to as 'Workfare'.

On the surface it makes complete sense but becomes a bureaucratic and logistical nightmare. I could not imagine having to enforce this type of system.

Think about all of the problems this causes:
- calculating the appropriate numbers of hours
- determining the right work for each person
- taking away time people could be looking for permanent employment
- taking away one's ability to go to school
- child care
- the effect on the market for these types of jobs - the effect this would have on companies and employed citizens that would normally get this work

In American I see this being a huge Catch-22 for the right. On one hand they don't want citizens suckling at the govt's teat for nothing but on the other hand they don't want the govt forcing citizens to do anything or effect the market for these types of services.

Again, I think the program makes complete sense on it's surface but I'm mostly just glad I am not the one that has to organize it.

I also find it offensive that anyone would call it 'slave labour', not because it offends human beings that suffered as actual slaves but because I am an American and we don't accept you people adding u's to words like 'color' and 'labor'.

 

[Loveless]

Nor do I, but I do think it's unreasonable to expect to be given the money for doing absolutely nothing - we need to ask ourselves why people would refuse to do this work if they're so actively seeking a job - surely doing something is better than doing nothing?

We live in a socialist society that takes responsibility for the people who can't take care of themselves or need help. I'm assuming you're working for the NHS, you should understand that more than anyone.

In terms of being made to be homeless, or starve - if people choose that over doing a hard days work, they've made their choice, and are complete idiots.

You can't force employers to hire you. Part of the reason why I've struggled is because I'm shy/anxious/mental and moreso in interviews. I don't come across well, even when I can easily do the job. It's not a choice

I'm not sure what you mean by unsuitable, but I do agree 30 hours is excessive.

If you'd been in the system you'd know what I mean. When the government talks about these systems, they don't give you a wide choice of what you can do. When I was 20 there were 3 choices, none of which were any use to me or that I was any good at, I ended up being a landscape gardener for 18 months, my back is still messed up from that. I feel more sorry for the young girl who was also forced to do the same.
Now if they'd offered me 15 hours in a kitchen with training I'd have snapped their bloody hand off but no, not an option. You can't trust the government not to monumentally fuck these things up, they're rich trust fund boys who know nothing of the real world.

 

[Shotaro]

We live in a socialist society that takes responsibility for the people who can't take care of themselves or need help. I'm assuming you're working for the NHS, you should understand that more than anyone.

I agree but there are a LOT of people who are perfectly capable of working and contributing who do not. A true socialist society puts everyone who can work in a role suitable to them so that they can contribute to the economy and assist those who need help.

As long as there is any form of capitalism there can be no true socialism and vice-versa

You can't force employers to hire you. Part of the reason why I've struggled is because I'm shy/anxious/mental and moreso in interviews. I don't come across well, even when I can easily do the job. It's not a choice

For you maybe, but I have to say that it is likely you are in the minority. Recently my employer had a single opening in the kitchens, of the 70 applications recieved many had left the personal statement section blank or outright admitted that they were told to apply. Those people are the ones who need to be made to work. The people who legitimately try do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush, however even the most conservative of military strategies suggest Carpet Bombing as an effective way to draw out the enemy. Make everyone on jobseekers work and the ones who don't want to work will quickly become evident.

Another factor in terms of jobseeking is snobbery. I know several people who are long-term unemployed and are keen to get back to work. Some of them will be unemployed for a long time. Why? because they do not want to work full stop. They want a job that they will enjoy. I remember quite clearly seeing a barely literate boy on the news being asked if he would work in a factory and his response was a scoff and a "no - I want to work as an X but there are no jobs". He doesn't want to work, not really, he will happily sponge off the state until he is given a job on a silver platter. I am 27 years old and even among people my age there is a huge sense of entitlement regarding well-paid jobs. Among those I know who are younger that sense is even keener.

If you'd been in the system you'd know what I mean. When the government talks about these systems, they don't give you a wide choice of what you can do. When I was 20 there were 3 choices, none of which were any use to me or that I was any good at, I ended up being a landscape gardener for 18 months, my back is still messed up from that. I feel more sorry for the young girl who was also forced to do the same.
Now if they'd offered me 15 hours in a kitchen with training I'd have snapped their bloody hand off but no, not an option. You can't trust the government not to monumentally fuck these things up, they're rich trust fund boys who know nothing of the real world.

Now - here they should be forcing the EMPLOYER to train you. They've directed you towards and found you a job - no doubt at a cheap rate and they've sent you that way likely because they know you will work. The employer should be training you and should be offering on the job training anyway. Besides it's likely that you would be doing little more than washing pots and cleaning sides to begin with. I don't mean to be accusatory but exactly what training do you require to operate a sink? It's not like they are asking you to be the sous-chef or anything. What I'm trying to say is, have you spoken to the prospective employer? Has the Job Centre advised you to do so?

My (admittedly and frankly wonderfully) short time within that system a few years ago made me realise how ridiculous it was. I was waiting for a job to be handed to me and by pure chance I found not only a career that I genuinely enjoy but a vocation that fits my skills perfectly. I admit that I played the system to an extent and created a journal of looking for work that included - checking the jobs on a weekly basis in the newspaper (which, since I only needed to check in fortnightly and was only required to do three things to search for a job - counted for two.) For the third I would check the terminals WITHIN the job centre before and after my meeting so that I could say I had done three things.

The real problem the UK has is that we're in a catch 22 situation. The Pseudo-Socialism we currently have does not work, that much is self evident. If we swing towards full socialism we end up with a bloated public sector and delving further towards a Soverign Debt Crisis much like Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the rest of Europe. IF we swing the other way and put all of the emphasis on promoting capitalism we end up losing out on money in the national coffers since encouraging business usually entails giving them a reason to come to our Island in the first place (ie dropping the high tax rate/corporation tax) which doesn't guarantee us anything in return. Making arrangements for us to call in any money/benefits given to companies who do not live up to their end of the bargain typically doesn't end well either - just look at what happenned to 38 studios in the US - the state called in a debt and the company went under.

In summation it seems as though the Govt is trying to make the best of a bad situation by trying to weed out the people who do not WANT to work and therefore depriving them of benefits - I know that a lot of people on benefits live hand to mouth, but - and I speak from experience living in one of the poorest parts of the country - a LOT of people who are subsisting entirely on benefits have iPhones (on contracts mind you), games consoles and other luxuries that people I know who DO work cannot afford. After all if your rent is paid for, you're smart about where you buy food, and you get discounted rates on essentials like heating and water then £65 a week ends up being money to spend on yourself, not money to spend on making ends meet.

 

[Mustang Sally]

But a study shows half of claimants would rather lose their cash than do unpaid work.

Of course, one alternative to that choice is to try to get a job rather than sitting at home and collecting their "entitlement."

It's impossible to know how many people are unemployed because they're trying to find a job and legitimately can't.....and how many are spending their lives looking for ways to beat the system and be paid for not working. In the U.S., when the welfare system was established in the 1930's, it was designed to assist people through tough times and each family's use of the system was intended to be of limited duration. Obviously, the government didn't foresee people immediately learning to work the system and staying on welfare the rest of their lives. Sure, in hindsight it could be argued that government should have known better, but there was no model in U.S. history to compare it to.

So, now we see what the U.K. is looking at. I read the other opinions in this thread and ask: Is it better to presume that everyone out of work is diligently trying to find a job...... or is it more realistic to make them do unpaid work for the community and find out for sure?

I don't particularly like the notion of government forcing you to sink or swim.....yet, for most of mankind's history, that's just what we did, isn't it?

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't have a problem at all with this type of a program. I've always believed in government assistance to those who need it, to prevent people from starving when they cannot find jobs. I understand that not everyone is properly educated, that people have life factors which have caused their life to go in an undesirable direction, and sometimes people need assistance.

But I also have always believed that you should always work for what you get, earn what you take. Applying this situation to America, if someone needs government assistance, they should not expect it to come for free. If you want money from the government/taxpayers, then you need to contribute something back to society. I have absolutely ZERO problem with such a program in America.

Perhaps you could even set it up into different tiers. For example, let's say the most money you can receive a week is $100 (for easy round number's sake). If you want the full $100, you have to work X number of hours a week. If you don't want to work that many hours, then you can step down and work X-1/2X for $50 a week. Or X-1/4X hours a week for $75. This would allow a person to hold a regular job during the week, but if that job still puts them below the poverty line, they can work on the weekend to make some extra money. Or if they want to go to school, they can do so.

A man is not truly a man without a job (or a woman, if so desired). Any man worth his salt would never accept a living unless he earned it. I truly believe that, and I think if large amounts of government money is to be handed out, then society deserves something in return for it.

 

[DarkFlame]

Having read almost all the posts thus far, and yes I'll admit skim reading the last few because I am a lazy person , I don't think anyone has yet notice the once flaw with this concept of making Jobseekers 'work' for their money. I recently, well, over a year ago now, spoke to a good friend of mine who happens to be a member of the Labour party and has run for local council. I spoke to him in length and detail about a scheme where people claiming JSA for a period of more than 6 months would be forced/encouraged/told (however you would prefer it worded) to do some form of voluntary work through the local council to help the local community.

My idea was that 10 hours a week would cover the cost of their JSA and that the council would have a plethora of small tasks or teams who needed an extra pair of hands to help them. Seems simple enough but, what I never thought of was the knock on effect.

These people would need to be insured by the council. They would most likely need some form of health and safety training. The would probably require some form of equiptment for certain jobs (litter pickers, heavy duty gloves, face masks, hi-vis jackets etc) and they would probably require some level of training to give the council paperwork to show due-dilligence in the event of an accident.

Whats the issue? Well, all of that would probably take weeks to achieve and cost a fortune per head. The council would need to set up a special team to handle the 'volunteers' which, while creating say 5-10 new grossly overpaid desk jobs at the council, would further increase costs.

Add to that the probability that councils would use more than likely try and use this 'free-labour' as a replacement for their current street services rather than in addition to them and your pushing more people onto the dole.

Personally I think education and a more severe punishments for criminal acts is the answer but I really don't want to fly off on a rant about that!

Seeing as we're on a wrestling forum I think we should all look at the people we love to watch regularly for inspiration. Not every guy in wrestling was as savvy as Mick Foley with their money therefore most of them need a paycheck so they still go out and bust their ass night after night hurt or not and some of them are hurt worse than some DLA claimants I've known in the past. No, I'm not tarring every DLA/JSA claimant with the same brush but I was raised to always work and work hard, earn what you can while you can and never let anyone down. If we can instill the same work ethic in younger people we can achieve but why would any teenager who's spent their whole life with their parent/parents not working, claiming benefits and still having a relatively decent standard of life, want to do differently when you can have it all handed to you on a plate? A roof over your head and money in your pocket in return for faking a few signatures and sitting in an office every 2 weeks? Put yourself in their little Nike shoes, smoke a joint and see what option you'd choose? The hard life or the easy one?

 

[Miko]

If the government want to force people to work then thats all well and good, but somebody working 30 hours a week deserves being paid for 30 hours a week, no matter what they are doing, they dont deserve to be told "well, you did a good job painting this school, now heres you're £65 this week cunty and consider yourself lucky to get anything at all you scrounging bastard." Nobody retort with "but they've been on benefits, they are earning them back now," we live in 2012, no one deserves to starve.

What I dont like is the idea that there are people out there who do these jobs anyway that might lose out, if its a case where normally someone would be hired out to do it properly and instead a bunch of jobseekers are doing it for free it cant be a great move, in a time where jobs are scarce we need the pointless ones surely? Most people dont do any kind of manual labour so as such they look on those people as morons, and that anyone can do their job. Someone tells me they are an admin and I think exactly the same about them, most office jobs are fucking pointless tasks done by desk jockeys and if you're boss created a list of reasons why you are absolutely useless to the company you work for I guarantee it'd be in double figures, yet these are the people that will look out of the window and see a Gardening company and think "Pfft, anybody can do that" everyone thinks they are important, but they arent.

So yeah, lets send out the unemployed to do the mindless tasks that anybody could do, like trim hedges and paint schools, lets make everybody do it for their jobseekers and if it continues soon nobody will get paid for doing anything much, because anybody can do you're job as well. Sooner or later there will be people signing on because they cant get work, that will then get sent by the jobcentre to do the job they used to do for less hours and for pittence. Will it go as far as I said? Of course not, people will protect themselves after all, but somewhere, someone will suffer because of it.

No I am not a painter, nor am I a gardener.

 

[Slyfox696]

If the government want to force people to work then thats all well and good, but somebody working 30 hours a week deserves being paid for 30 hours a week, no matter what they are doing, they dont deserve to be told "well, you did a good job painting this school, now heres you're £65 this week cunty and consider yourself lucky to get anything at all you scrounging bastard." Nobody retort with "but they've been on benefits, they are earning them back now," we live in 2012, no one deserves to starve.

I can't speak for other countries, but there are MANY people in America who work on salary. For example, let's just use athletes. If someone is being paid a salary of $2 million dollars, it doesn't matter if he plays 160 games or 20 games, he's still getting paid $2 million dollars.

If you're being given government benefits, you're receiving those benefits now, regardless of whether or not you do work. There's nothing wrong at all with saying "if you want this 'salary', you have to work for it".

What I dont like is the idea that there are people out there who do these jobs anyway that might lose out, if its a case where normally someone would be hired out to do it properly and instead a bunch of jobseekers are doing it for free it cant be a great move, in a time where jobs are scarce we need the pointless ones surely?

There are a lot of projects that need doing, but no one can afford to do it.

 

[shattered dreams]

I always find the welfare "issue" to be interesting. In America the statistics show that the people that abuse these programs are a minority while the majority use the programs as intended (short term holdover from unexpected hardship). Possibly more controversially I have no problem with people that game the system. Why? Quality of life can't possibly be so good on these wages that there is no motivation to work. In the example in the post these people are receiving less than $5500 a year. What can happen is that people find that taking a bad job is actually worse than just staying on the benefits. I have no problem with that because it is the rational response. It is no different than rich people tax planning to take advantage of various government programs but the issues are treated entirely separately. Governments give money for "nothing" all the time. There usually is a bigger picture issue involved. I understand that the idea of people not working and getting money frustrates people but if you step back from the emotional response, and rationally analyze the situation, it is easy to see these programs are of significant benefit to everyone and that any excessive effort to go after the minority that abuse the system is likely to be more trouble than it is worth.

 

[Dilligaf]

I think the "Workshy, Lazy" fuckers should be made to work for their money.

It really fucks me off how the dolepushers that cant be fucking arsed to get a job can get away with not doing diddly fucking squat, when I was on the dole I DID EVERYTHING I could to get a job, I kept all my letters from employers as proof and the dole office workers didnt beleive me, & so much so neither did my wife and her family & it nearly broke up my marriage.

Then I got a job, and my wife made me feel like I was usefull again now im bringing in the bacon, as most of the time thats all im good for these days, as long as im bringing home the wage no-one gives a fuck.

But then I hear about my sister-in-laws fiance, who hates working & claims dole, makes her goto work so he dont have to and calls me a muppet for going to work to support my family.

Then on the other hand, I got my wife's best mate & her husband, who havent worked for years, because she claims she depressed and he cant work due to his hernia operation 5 years ago, even thought he's been cleared to go back to work and he does carpentry jobs on the side.

And they actually told my wife that the dole-office told them they are better off on the dole than getting a job, which is total utter fucking bullshit.

But there is a little justice in the world, as my sister-in-law has put her foot down and declared to him "Dont get a fucking job, but I aint gonna give ya money"

And my wife's best mate has had to sell their car and all the luxuries they have because they cant afford em anymore.

As far as this "Slave Labor" goes, if ya cant be fucking arsed to get off ya lazy fucking arses, tough shit.

 

[Lee]

You know why people aren't working? Because there's no fucking jobs is why. For all those "get off your arse and get a job" come up to Newcastle, I'll give you a month.

Up here there is barely much going unless you have a very specific skill set or you don't mind working for minimum wage in a high pressure call centre on a temporary 2 month contract.

The problem with this scheme is they've been making law graduates work in Poundland full time (that's 40 hours a week) on the same money as benefits (£60 a week) rather than the minimum wage. This is turn is not creating a job, it's various companies exploiting people in vunerable states.

As has previously pointed out: this is taken from other people who would otherwise have that job and be paid the full working week.

Also read this story and tell me it's lazy bastards who can't get off their arses (Bristol to London by coach!) to do work (that they told was paid but actually it wasn't) in excellent working conditions (sleeping under a bridge like homeless and getting changed in public).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

 

[Shotaro]

You know why people aren't working? Because there's no fucking jobs is why. For all those "get off your arse and get a job" come up to Newcastle, I'll give you a month.

I agree to an extent, however, the benefits are targetted at people who cannot get a job because of circumstance and a large percentage of the benefit system is to prop people up between work. There is a significant difference between the people who are truly willing to work and those who are not willing to work but pretend to look for jobs in order to ensure they keep getting their benefits.

One of the more telling conversations I had recently was with a mother, whose daughter wanted to take a course with my college - I informed her that the course was not full time. First question "So I would not get child benefit if she did this course?" My response, no, your daughter would need to be fu-. At that point she hung up, why? because it would reduce her money coming in for her daughter to waive jsa and go to college.

Up here there is barely much going unless you have a very specific skill set or you don't mind working for minimum wage in a high pressure call centre on a temporary 2 month contract.

Indeed, though the industries are different and the job is lower pressure, in my town there are only temporary jobs in factories or for skilled workers.

The problem with this scheme is they've been making law graduates work in Poundland full time (that's 40 hours a week) on the same money as benefits (£60 a week) rather than the minimum wage. This is turn is not creating a job, it's various companies exploiting people in vunerable states.

As has previously pointed out: this is taken from other people who would otherwise have that job and be paid the full working week.

I agree on this point, whole-heartedly. Companies like Tesco and Poundland should have to pay some recompence to either the government or even better the workers - It would be prefereable, in my opinion if Tesco/Poundland/Whoever agreed to take on X% of new staff in exchange for the free labour they recieve, at the very least they should pay the money for the benefits of those people they employ. For me, this "work programme" should aid charities like Oxfam, or the British Heart Foundation, or any number of other charities that raise money from second-hand stores. That way the government is getting them working with relevant experience and the workers are not losing out on pay (since charity work is un-paid)

Also read this story and tell me it's lazy bastards who can't get off their arses (Bristol to London by coach!) to do work (that they told was paid but actually it wasn't) in excellent working conditions (sleeping under a bridge like homeless and getting changed in public).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

Although it is an article from the Guardian, who, quite honestly would be disgusted if it transpired David Cameron actually shat gold (I'm not saying I disagree necessarily but it is probably the most openly biased paper right now other than the Daily Mail/Express) this is a delporable use of the system and the fact that it was for a state event makes it worse. The onus should be on their employer however, the person who, specifically said, "no, these people do not need accomodation even if we are shipping them in from cities over 100 miles away" should be at least, fired and ideally, serve some sort of sanction from the courts.

 

[Miko]

I can't speak for other countries, but there are MANY people in America who work on salary. For example, let's just use athletes. If someone is being paid a salary of $2 million dollars, it doesn't matter if he plays 160 games or 20 games, he's still getting paid $2 million dollars.

Yeah, I was self employed for years, that is basically how I worked, to a fee however long the job took. 30 hours a week for 60 odd quid isnt enough money, if they shortened the hours to maybe 10 or 15 I wouldnt have as much of a problem, its still too many for the pay recieved but I'll call that incentive to get a job.

30 hours is time that could be spent looking for work, instead its spent on doing tasks that somebody wants on the cheap. In a scheme that only really appeases the hard nosed, clueless people who say things like "yeah, they don't wanna fucking work!"

If you're being given government benefits, you're receiving those benefits now, regardless of whether or not you do work. There's nothing wrong at all with saying "if you want this 'salary', you have to work for it".

Within reason. Besides there is still the issue of maybe this is taking work away from other people, unless they can come out and say that there is no way anybody would've been employed to do this I just see it as counter productive, a source of cheap labour.

There are a lot of projects that need doing, but no one can afford to do it.

Haggle or use Pikies like everybody else. . .