Tories plan forced labour for the jobless

[Sulkdodds]

In totally bizarro news:

Ministers have defended their plans to force the long-term unemployed to do manual work or lose benefits.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander told the BBC the idea was not to "punish or humiliate" but to get people back into the habit of working.

But the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said the changes could drive people "into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair".

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is to unveil the plans this week.

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 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.

Job advisers would be given powers to require tens of thousands of claimants to take part in community work for charities or local councils.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11706545

Very odd. Alexander denies that these new measures would amount to treating the unemployed like criminals, but when you get right down to it, it's the same thing, the same work, and the same kind of compulsion. It's difficult to see how this will be helpful for the citizens in question, or how the policy would avoid punishing innocents.

Stepping around issues of whether it is okay to actually force people to accept work when they have committed no crime, I do wonder what jobs they're going to be doing - indeed what jobs they are expected to have sought in the first place. One is reminded of what some journalist or other has by now surely referred to as 'get-on-a-bus-gate', an incident in which Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith managed to make a statement which was comprehensively wrong on about every level possible. Will Cardiff's 15,000 unemployed also be forced out of their workshy habits if they can't show the initiative to squeeze themselves into the city's 1700 available jobs?

THOUGHTS:

 

[EversorAssassin]

I'm actually thinking its a good idea.

My friend's mom has been out of a job for beyond ten years, milking the benefits and working the system (USA, btw) and REFUSES to get a job. A plan over here like that would be excellent to teach her lazy arse to get a job.

 

[15357]

It's not forcing people to work; you actually have a choice. Of course, the fact that I agree with this measure is bound to give you guys some pause.

 

[Krynn72]

I don't see how telling people they need to do some work or the govt. is going to stop paying them unemployment money is at all comparable to forcing criminals to work. That said, a 30hr/week manual labor job is not even near worth it for the paltry money that unemployment benefits give. Thats ignoring the fact that unemployment benefits is paid for by tax-payers, so people who have worked and paid their taxes for years have already paid their dues (as determined by the Government) so its rediculous to then suddenly say "now, in addition to paying us for this benefit, you need to bust your ass for 30 hours a week." I'm on unemployment right now in the US, and if I were forced into a 30hr work week for the benefits I'm getting (I qualified for the most money anybody from Louisiana could possibly get), I'd be making less than minimum wage, thats how little money people get for unemployment.

Saying its treating people like criminals isn't fair, but the notion of having people work for so many hours a week for money that they already paid for is disgusting.

My friend's mom has been out of a job for beyond ten years, milking the benefits and working the system (USA, btw)

Wait, what? How? I'm coming up on my 26th week of unemployment benefits, and I likely wont be able to file an extension (thanks republicans!). How the **** does someone get 10 years out of it?

 

[lord_raken]

I think the goal and the idea behind this is a good one. It prevents people from just sitting back and collecting money for doing nothing.

Eversor has a good example of what this plan would try to eliminate. Some people are comfortable receiving benefits for doing nothing, but once you make them "work" for it it suddenly becomes less appealing to them. Which is the whole idea, I think.

I think having a requirement of some sort in order for one to collect unemployment benefits is a good one.... 30 hours of manual labor seems like a strange way to do that. Maybe they should have substantial proof that they is seeking a new job.

If you are trying to get back on your feet, some extra cash can make a difference. However, in you are sitting on your ass collecting taxpayer's money and have no intention of getting a job I see no reason why the taxpayers should support the lazy asses. (we call them welfare queens in the U.S.)

 

[Maestro]

I'll bet you anything that both the UK and the US need significant infrastructure work.

 

[EversorAssassin]

Wait, what? How? I'm coming up on my 26th week of unemployment benefits, and I likely wont be able to file an extension (thanks republicans!). How the **** does someone get 10 years out of it?

I'm not entirely sure. I think she claimed disability as soon as her unemployment ended on the basis of 'migraines' that don't exist, and she's living off that now. But I'm fairly certain she had unemployment for a hell of a lot longer than you can normally receive.

 

[Stigmata]

If they have labour to be done, why not, oh I don't know, hire some unemployed people to do it?

 

[15357]

If they have labour to be done, why not, oh I don't know, hire some unemployed people to do it?

They don't have money?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Unless they have a good reason they can't work, they shouldn't be getting a penny from the government.

 

[ríomhaire]

There was a similar idea over here. Except I believe the suggestion was that if you turned down an invitation training course your benefits would be cut. There was also talk of loosing them if you turned down a "reasonable job offer" but who knows how that would be defined legally. In any case neither of these ideas have been put into law.

 

[Link]

I have to admit I'm suprised at some of the reactions to this. If we are paying them, they should be working for us. If they don't like the pay we offer, they can look for work elsewhere.
By "we", I mean tax payers.
I'm responce to the next responce I suspect this is going to get, bring back the poorhouses...

 

[StardogChampion]

It's a dumb idea and it won't work.

If you're going to force people to work then make them work in the industry they're qualified for so they can get experience, not some random volunteer work. Force businesses to accept a few workers each for free, like they do for work experience students.

 

[Laivasse]

Unless they have a good reason they can't work, they shouldn't be getting a penny from the government.

There are 400-500,000 vacancies and 2.5 million unemployed. I'd say that makes for a pretty good reason for at least 2.1 million people. Of course, if you count the number of people who are considered 'inactive' in the labour market for various reasons - often spurious reasons cooked up by the govt. in order to minimise the scale of unemployment - the figure is well over 9 million people.

But **** the numbers, LET'S BUILD SOME WORKHOUSES FOR THE UNDESERVING POOR.

Also lol@IDS' retarded 'get on a bus' gaffe.

 

[Eejit]

You guys
you you guys
do you
do you, hey, hey, you guys
do you not realize
hey, hey
you guys
there are fewer jobs than there are unemployed
the Tories are cutting public sector jobs
'work elsewhere' does not exist
do you not realize

That isn't so relevant to asking the long-term unemployed to do community make-work in order to keep their benefits. It's not saying that they have to get a 'proper job' OR ELSE. It's saying that if they want to continue to get the dole after a certain period then they should earn the benefits.

 

[Solaris]

Many of these unemployed have paid taxes for years. They have paid for the right to claim their mandatory unemployment insurance when they lost work and don't deserve to get treated like a criminal for doing so.

It's worth noting as well that those being wrongly kicked off disability benefit will be unable to do work such as this and so will loose their benefits entirely. What we are seeing here is nothing more than an all out assault on the working class.

 

[Stigmata]

They don't have money?

Then I guess there isn't any work to be done.

 

[Krynn72]

I have to admit I'm suprised at some of the reactions to this. If we are paying them, they should be working for us. If they don't like the pay we offer, they can look for work elsewhere.
By "we", I mean tax payers.

The people on unemployment have paid their dues through their taxes. What kind of ****ed up logic do you have that concludes that they need to work 30 hours of manual labor in addition to having been taxed, and continue being taxed, just to get a paltry sum of their own money back?

Thats like an insurance company collecting your monthly payments, your deductible, and then saying "now you need to do $3,000 worth of work for us before we'll pay your $500 medical bill."

 

[The Monkey]

I have a really hard time understanding the argument that there're people who can just milk the welfare indefinitely and life a good life. In Sweden, allegedly one of the most generous welfare states in the world, it's quite hard to live a decent life on the benefits you get (which you won't receive in the first place unless you're prepared to sell your car, flat etc.). I can only imagine how hard it must be in the minimal welfares states of the Anglo-Saxon regime (Britain, the US etc.).

 

[15357]

I have a really hard time understanding the argument that there're people who can just milk the welfare indefinitely and life a good life. In Sweden, allegedly one of the most generous welfare states in the world, it's quite hard to live a decent life on the benefits you get (which you won't receive in the first place unless you're prepared to sell your car, flat etc.). I can only imagine how hard it must be in the minimal welfares states of the Anglo-Saxon regime (Britain, the US etc.).

I was under the impression that Sweden's welfare works mainly because of that reason, and also because of your high tax rates.

Then I guess there isn't any work to be done.

Uh, no. That's not how it works. You don't have money just because you have work to be done, you need money to do the work.

 

[Krynn72]

I have a really hard time understanding the argument that there're people who can just milk the welfare indefinitely and life a good life. In Sweden, allegedly one of the most generous welfare states in the world, it's quite hard to live a decent life on the benefits you get (which you won't receive in the first place unless you're prepared to sell your car, flat etc.). I can only imagine how hard it must be in the minimal welfares states of the Anglo-Saxon regime (Britain, the US etc.).

My friend and co-worker who got laid off at the same time as me said hes going to literally be living under a bridge if he can't file an extension. Even in one of the cheapest areas in the country to live, the unemployment benefits he gets have pretty much bankrupted him. Theres been weeks where he goes a couple days without food, he had to beg his landlord to lower his rent, and hes been unable to save any money whatsoever. Thats a shitload of stress, and only made worse by the fact that we only got 26 weeks of benefits, and by the end of this month he wont be able to pay rent, buy food, or anything. He doesn't have any family to go to, only a handful of people he knows that still live nearby, so hes pretty much ****ed. This is a guy with a Bachelors degree in Computer Animation, and a Masters in Business. A guy who is actually trying to find work, who is actually trying to make money through personal projects, but is going to get ****ed because the government rejected any more extensions.

 

[lord_raken]

26 weeks is considered short term. I think the idea is to target people who purposefully don't work so they can reap some sort of government welfare for years and years... these people are ticks and feed off of society with out contributing and I see no problem with pressuring them to get off of their lazy asses and find a job. If you are trying to get a job there should not be a problem, but you can't expect the government to take care of you forever.

Krynn I think you and your friend's situation is demonstrably different from the issue this law is tackling.

 

[Krynn72]

My point was that people aren't really "feeding off society." People living on unemployment are barely scraping by. Its not like they're sitting back in their fancy new reclining chair watch HBO and other premium channels all day. Most likely they're in debt up to their eyeballs, and can barely afford food let alone luxuries. The only people in a position to comfortably live on these shitty unemployment checks are people who have some situation where they pay no rent, have no bills and no family to support. I really don't think very many people like that exist, certainly not enough to enact a law that affects the entirety of the unemployed masses just to deal with these few cases. The idea of a person sitting back getting bit fat wads of cash from the government and living without responsibilities is an idea that conservatives promote in order to have a case against raising taxes or diverting funds from shit they want government funds to go to.

 

[VirusType2]

I've been destitute (requiring help from family to make it) many times. In my experience, unemployment benefits aren't even enough for food and I'm the skinniest guy you'll ever meet. That's it. There's no money left for anything else.

EDIT: Maybe it's also based on your previous income. But you can forget about living it up, that's for sure.

 

[Solaris]

Well it's some what true, however, like me and my mates when we were on the dole a month or so ago, when you're living with parents, have no bills, that 50quid a week is a shit load of money, we drank like richmen for weeks I'll tell you.

Those were the days, back to studying, working and the cheapest, strongest and biggest cider now.

 

[VirusType2]

In the United States:


-The employer pays for unemployment benefits out of payroll taxes, at least in my state. It's generally not paid by the government at all.**

-You can only qualify if you lost your job through no fault of your own.

-Benefit length and amount is based on how long you were working there and how much you made.

-You must actively seek work (I think it was 2 applications per week).

-You must not turn down any job offers unless there is a damn good reason.

-Benefits will be reduced if you take any side jobs (you are legally required to report any income)

Unemployment insurance is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal and state UI taxes).[18] Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if:

(1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1,500 or more in any quarter of a calendar year; or,[18]
(2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

 

[Bob_Marley]

This is entirely the wrong way to go about it. It would make much more sense to punish those who refuse job offers as that would allow those suffering genuine unemployment to continue to claim the benifits they require while those who could be working, assuming they don't pull a "spud", are working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apCtRg6mOVk&feature=related