Get on your Hoe and look for work

[DodgyAgent]

Workfare gets the unemployed into the routine of work. it does not actually matter what they do but the important thing is getting them to realise the connection between work and pay. It would also grow their self esteem and equip them far better for the jobs market than any lectures, advice or training from the nanny state.

[Batcher]

Many years ago I managed to get a day release to college from my local council employer. Even then I was a 'mature' student

One of the 16-year-old girls in my class lived with her non-working single mother and admitted she was trying to get pregnant herself so she would be given a council flat of her own. She ended up in a tower block in a run down Edinburgh council estate with her baby.

I couldn't understand why she didn't work on her college course to try and get a job and improve her life instead of going down the route of what she thought was easy money.

I haven't seen her since but she probably still lives there with umpteen kids from different fathers.

[SpontaneousOrder]

and not sure why you suggest people that feel workfare type schemes are good are likely to want to abolish teh minimum wage?

Because if the work is worth doing, and the benefits payments given in return for that work were equal to or higher than minimum wage, then some private enterprise would already be doing it.

With that being the case, that the state needs the unemployed to do it means that they are employing people to work below minimum wage.

So if anyone supports the scheme, and also supports minimum wage laws, then I'm interested to hear how they reconcile the apparent contradiction?

And moreover, if it's a good idea for the state to spendy below minimum wage to clear out Ragwort and fund a person's livelihood, then why can't it also be good for a private enterprise to spend that same wage to support another man's livelihood and at the same time clear up litter - or whatever?

[d000hg]

Workfare gets the unemployed into the routine of work. it does not actually matter what they do but the important thing is getting them to realise the connection between work and pay. It would also grow their self esteem and equip them far better for the jobs market than any lectures, advice or training from the nanny state.

They'd better realise the connection between work and pay if they got paid for doing the work.

"There isn't enough money to pay them to work" isn't really an excuse IMO. If it's real work rather than makework they deserve to be paid. This is one case where borrowing money actually makes sense because you're getting something out of it.

My other issue with workfare is that you have to make sure the people are given time to look for "real" work. Fair enough for unskilled folk, this could BE their long-time unemployment. But if you graduate from university or get sacked from your IT job and are forced to go sweeping up litter, that's not great.

The problem with all of these things is it generalises the same treatment to everyone rather than treating people as individuals. Bright, educated people I know who earnestly want jobs are forced into the same "you must take absolutely any job no matter what hours or how unsuitable" check-box routine as those who need to be forced to do that.
A friend of mine got told off for having pre-existing plans to go away with friends for one weekend, and has to have a special "coming back from holiday" interview on Monday.

[DodgyAgent]

Any of the naysayers prepared to argue that it is better for people to do nothing and be paid welfare?

[KentPhilip]

do you also support abolishing minimum wage laws?

But companies are already allowed to hire workers at below minimum wage - as volunteers. Why is it payments between zero and the minimum wage only that are outlawed?

[vetran]

Because if the work is worth doing, and the benefits payments given in return for that work were equal to or higher than minimum wage, then some private enterprise would already be doing it.

With that being the case, that the state needs the unemployed to do it means that they are employing people to work below minimum wage.

So if anyone supports the scheme, and also supports minimum wage laws, then I'm interested to hear how they reconcile the apparent contradiction?

And moreover, if it's a good idea for the state to spendy below minimum wage to clear out Ragwort and fund a person's livelihood, then why can't it also be good for a private enterprise to spend that same wage to support another man's livelihood and at the same time clear up litter - or whatever?

Minimum wage is to prevent companies exploiting workers, it does not apply to benefit recipients. If you are truly worried shall we add all their benefits up and then check if their total benefit spend exceeds minimum wage? Are you sure benefit spend on unemployed people is under £254 a week? Especially if you consider multiple people in a workless family who equate to one worker earning minimum wage in a working family.

Even if you only work them for 2 hours a day it would have a positive result especially if the work starts at say 8am.


OK I'll ask a different question how would you solve benefit dependency?

[vetran]

They'd better realise the connection between work and pay if they got paid for doing the work.

"There isn't enough money to pay them to work" isn't really an excuse IMO. If it's real work rather than makework they deserve to be paid. This is one case where borrowing money actually makes sense because you're getting something out of it.

My other issue with workfare is that you have to make sure the people are given time to look for "real" work. Fair enough for unskilled folk, this could BE their long-time unemployment. But if you graduate from university or get sacked from your IT job and are forced to go sweeping up litter, that's not great.

The problem with all of these things is it generalises the same treatment to everyone rather than treating people as individuals. Bright, educated people I know who earnestly want jobs are forced into the same "you must take absolutely any job no matter what hours or how unsuitable" check-box routine as those who need to be forced to do that.
A friend of mine got told off for having pre-existing plans to go away with friends for one weekend, and has to have a special "coming back from holiday" interview on Monday.

I'm all for a 6 - 12 month light touch and workfare free period for those with decent work histories. The big stick needs to exist but it doesn't have to be applied to people likely to find work soon. But once they have been unemployed for a year they are unlikely to find work without an incentive.

No one is suggesting the people should work all day, looking for work can also be done in the evening and on sanctioned holidays other wise employees would never find a new job.

[xoggoth]

It beats me why those on the left have a problem with requiring people to contribute as much as they reasonably can before relying on the state, given that Marx said "From each according to their ability". In Soviet Russia they certainly did not have the lax attitude our welfare state has. Here they whine about "bedroom tax" but in Russia, if circumstances changed leaving you in accommodation that was bigger than needed, you had to leave.

It is immensely damaging to society if people are perceived as getting far more than they deserve. Those who have to pay resent it and are more likely to find ways to avoid doing so and to limit what they contribute themselves. For example, why should people look after elderly parents and prevent local authorities having to provide care if a major cost to councils is providing homes for the able who do not work?

[xoggoth]

Bright, educated people I know who earnestly want jobs are forced into the same "you must take absolutely any job no matter what hours or how unsuitable"

As long as it does not stop them looking for more suitable work, why should they not? During contract gaps I've done low paid tutoring jobs and, going back a few decades, even done shop work until something better came along.