DB11 Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 I remember reading a few people having to work for free to claim job seekers allowance. Had a quick search but no specific thread on it, but the High Court has today rules that the government's 'Back To Work' as illegal. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marko Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Lamby will be delighted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 No doubt with a few tweaks it will be fine. Nothing wrong with being asked to do something for your benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zingari Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 No doubt with a few tweaks it will be fine. Nothing wrong with being asked to do something for your benefits. if there are jobs to be done and need doing , why not make them proper jobs with pay ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 if there are jobs to be done and need doing , why not make them proper jobs with pay ? Simply becuase the state should provide a minimum of essential services, and absolutely should not be in the business of creating jobs for the sake of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zingari Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Simply becuase the state should provide a minimum of essential services, and absolutely should not be in the business of creating jobs for the sake of it. If the things they are being asked to do need doing , they aren't creating jobs , the jobs are there . They just don't want to pay minimum wage to have them done . I'd sooner pay them properly and give them the respect of having the job . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Simply becuase the state should provide a minimum of essential services, and absolutely should not be in the business of creating jobs for the sake of it. Surely if something that would otherwise not be done gets done and someone gains an income with which they contribute to the economy, that's not "for the sakes of it?" If the things they are being asked to do need doing , they aren't creating jobs , the jobs are there . They just don't want to pay minimum wage to have them done . I'd sooner pay them properly and give them the respect of having the job . Spot on, all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 I agree in that I would rather government cut employment costs (NI) to enable the likes of Poundland to create more job opportunities for unskilled and unemployed workers. What you cannot do is subsidise jobs directly to get people off long term unemployment, which is what these schemes are aimed at. I see no harm in creating opportunities for work experience for those who have none. I particularly like the bit in the BBC article where Clare says the retail experience didn't help her get a job, followed by saying she now works part time in a supermarket. Perhaps she would not have got that job without the 2 weeks retail experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 The main bone of contention here is the fact that they were being forced into work and threatened with losing their benefits if they didn't, I don't see any issue with people on benefits being required to give something back to society, but when, in this case, she was volunteering at a museum and had to give that up to work in Poundland I understand her issue, if she was just sitting at home picking her arse collecting the money, then fair enough. Likewise for him, working 30 hours a week for 6 months unpaid, and receiving a pittance on JSA for the privilege is wrong. As I said in a similar thread any forced work should be proportional to the amount they receive, so JSA is £70 a week, I think, so at most they could be forced to work 10 hours a week, and any time over that should be paid at minimum wage, my other issue with this scheme is that was ripe for exploitation by big businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 A good idea that has been clearly used the wrong way and on the wrong people. What a cock up, another victory to the Lambys of this World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trav Le Bleu Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Simply becuase the state should provide a minimum of essential services, and absolutely should not be in the business of creating jobs for the sake of it. One word. Quango. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnow john Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Another payday for the legal vultures. Have you been forced to work for your J.S.A ? You could be owed thousands . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 A good idea that has been clearly used the wrong way and on the wrong people. What a cock up, another victory to the Lambys of this World. Yep. Somehow there are always idiots at the end of every process ****ing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Yep. Somehow there are always idiots at the end of every process ****ing it up. I think it was the idiots at the start of this process that fvcked this one up. A decent idea, but the execution of the idea was so ham fisted and poorly thought out that it was always going to end up a massive failure, much like most of what this Con-Dem abomination of a government have tried to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 I think it was the idiots at the start of this process that fvcked this one up. A decent idea, but the execution of the idea was so ham fisted and poorly thought out that it was always going to end up a massive failure, much like most of what this Con-Dem abomination of a government have tried to do. Its funny, i would consider most of it common sense, but the civil service manage to turn everything into cluster****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Its funny, i would consider most of it common sense, but the civil service manage to turn everything into cluster****. Don't know whether it is the fault of the civil service or the ministers, but I do honestly think this idea would have been executed much better under Tony Blair's government, they left so many gaps and so much open to exploitation, that it was very quickly turned into enforced slavery for big businesses, they very quickly tried to stop that, but it just showed the complete lack of thought or planning that had been put into this scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Don't know whether it is the fault of the civil service or the ministers, but I do honestly think this idea would have been executed much better under Tony Blair's government, they left so many gaps and so much open to exploitation, that it was very quickly turned into enforced slavery for big businesses, they very quickly tried to stop that, but it just showed the complete lack of thought or planning that had been put into this scheme. Blair's government were quite effective by the end, but in the first term they were pretty useless. This is rather the problem with a bunch of MPs who have never run anything being in charge. Also the nature of a coalition makes things harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket-Ron Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 If the things they are being asked to do need doing , they aren't creating jobs , the jobs are there . They just don't want to pay minimum wage to have them done . I'd sooner pay them properly and give them the respect of having the job . Exactly. No one should be expected to work for free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamby Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Lamby will be delighted! I ****ing am. "All of those who have been stripped of their benefits have a right to claim the money back that has been unlawfully taken away from them." Hopefully I can claim it all back them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueBrett Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 If the things they are being asked to do need doing , they aren't creating jobs , the jobs are there . They just don't want to pay minimum wage to have them done . I'd sooner pay them properly and give them the respect of having the job . The things they were getting people to do weren't essential it was stuff along the lines of working in charity shops etc. Work for work's sake. I was dead against the idea for this reason and because, as you suggest, it isn't right to expect people to work for less than minimum wage. Standard of living on the current minimum is bad enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danizen Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 I think the work placements are a great idea but forcing her to stop volunteering at a museum was wrong. I ****ing am. "All of those who have been stripped of their benefits have a right to claim the money back that has been unlawfully taken away from them." Hopefully I can claim it all back them The Government have said that's not going to happen.I also liked the bit of the Government statement which basically said, "We lost the case, these placements are illegal. Nevermind, we'll just rewrite the law so that they are legal...whatevs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamby Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 I don't give a shit, I'm still gonna try get it back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 I don't give a shit, I'm still gonna try get it back Go for it. You deserve every penny mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamby Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 They took like 3/4 months of my money away so I'm allowed to try to get it back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 12 February 2013 Share Posted 12 February 2013 Standard Britain of 2013, decent idea with absolutely beyond atrocious execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.