Public Works

[Jon the Hat]

2 days per week is reasonable and hard to argue against. What is coming out of this is that the goverment want the unemployed to work 35 hours a week for £52; the equivalent of £1.50 an hour (or £72 per week, £2.05 per hour, if your over 25) and if not, then they should spend 35 hrs a week in their local Jobcentre looking for work. That, by any reasonable standard, is unfair.

 

They dont have to claim the £52 if they have a better idea!  Seriously though, your 19 year old should be in some kind of training, and that is what this is trying to achieve. 

[Parafox]

They dont have to claim the £52 if they have a better idea!  Seriously though, your 19 year old should be in some kind of training, and that is what this is trying to achieve. 

 

What training??? Picking up litter?  Painting council houses? The only mention I have seen of training has been the statement that if there is an underlying cause such as illiteracy and inumeracy then those people should be taught English and maths. How long is that supposed to take? If they couldn't (not wouldn't) learn it in 10 years at school, how is the government going to teach them in a much shorter timescale?

 

I used to think you had quite erudite, realistic views but it seems, in this case, you are pretty narrow minded and are simply giving the standing ovation to a headline grabbing Tory announcement because, being Conservatives, whatever they say or do must be right. 

[Captain...]

2 days per week is reasonable and hard to argue against. What is coming out of this is that the goverment want the unemployed to work 35 hours a week for £52; the equivalent of £1.50 an hour (or £72 per week, £2.05 per hour, if your over 25) and if not, then they should spend 35 hrs a week in their local Jobcentre looking for work. That, by any reasonable standard, is unfair.

 

So far I've seen very little in terms of actual details, (no surprise there) but the principle I have no problem with, as long as it is viewed as making them employable and not as a punishment.

[Rincewind]

No one ever said Ken was an idiot.

I do that to show the difference between JSA and working 16 hours a week. Some still seem to think that if a bloke with family and kids  worked 35 or less hours a week at below minimum wage the benefits would stop and it would save the country millions.

Unless they had more than 6k in the bank they may still be able to claim

[Parafox]

So far I've seen very little in terms of actual details, (no surprise there) but the principle I have no problem with, as long as it is viewed as making them employable and not as a punishment.

 

And thereby hangs the problem. There is no job at the end of it. In fact, many prospective employers might take the view that, if you've been on this program, you actually might be unemployable.

[Guest MattP]

A person living at home would not be entitled to housing benefit

 

Yes I know, that's why I said on that point to JTH that under what I suggested even a person in that position would be claiming £140 a week and still being paid more than minimum wage under what I'm proposing of doing 2 days work every 2 weeks.

2 days per week is reasonable and hard to argue against. What is coming out of this is that the goverment want the unemployed to work 35 hours a week for £52; the equivalent of £1.50 an hour (or £72 per week, £2.05 per hour, if your over 25) and if not, then they should spend 35 hrs a week in their local Jobcentre looking for work. That, by any reasonable standard, is unfair.

 

It's not unfair to ask them to do 35 hours a week at a jobcentre learning and training if they are incapable of getting a job.

[Jon the Hat]

What training??? Picking up litter?  Painting council houses? The only mention I have seen of training has been the statement that if there is an underlying cause such as illiteracy and inumeracy then those people should be taught English and maths. How long is that supposed to take? If they couldn't (not wouldn't) learn it in 10 years at school, how is the government going to teach them in a much shorter timescale?

 

I used to think you had quite erudite, realistic views but it seems, in this case, you are pretty narrow minded and are simply giving the standing ovation to a headline grabbing Tory announcement because, being Conservatives, whatever they say or do must be right. 

There is lots of training available, this is clearly the stick with which to motivate those who know how to play the system, and are not interested in getting work.  I don't know where exactly you think I have given a standing ovation - perhaps you are so anti this idea that you think anyone talking about it sensibly is wrong.

 

As usual you pull out a few examples of he terrible impact this could in theory have on some people to banish the whole idea.  The idea is sound, and we have yet to see the details, so writing it off just seems to make you the kind of person who likes to criticise every idea that comes out, but not bring any constructive ideas to the table yourself.

[Guest]

And thereby hangs the problem. There is no job at the end of it. In fact, many prospective employers might take the view that, if you've been on this program, you actually might be unemployable.

I'm curious as to why an employer would see you as unemployable if you'd been on this program? Surely it would demonstrate capability and willing more than the alternative of not doing anything (which I would assume would in fact make a person look less employable)

[Parafox]

Yes I know, that's why I said on that point to JTH that under what I suggested even a person in that position would be claiming £140 a week and still being paid more than minimum wage under what I'm proposing of doing 2 days work every 2 weeks.

 

It's not unfair to ask them to do 35 hours a week at a jobcentre learning and training if they are incapable of getting a job.

 

 

It would be a hell of a crush. It could never work in practical terms.What about eating lunch, going to the toilet, health and safety issues such as emergency evacuation? Not to mention the fights that would break out.

 

Who would be helping them train or find work? I don't think the Jobcentre staff would be all that keen especially as there would never be enough of them to accomodate everyone in there. They are hardly capable of doing a decent job as it is.

[Captain...]

And thereby hangs the problem. There is no job at the end of it. In fact, many prospective employers might take the view that, if you've been on this program, you actually might be unemployable.

 

There is no job, but there is experience, there might be a reference, it might also give claimants the confidence to see that they can function in a job and work with others and make them realise that it is not as scary as they first thought and possibly even find it rewarding having structure and completing goals.

[Rincewind]

The principle is fine. There are plenty of charities that offer work programmes. DNO offer training but that has been pooh-oohed.

We have had young people on work experience. But if they are stuck in a job centre they cannot do the training. What has happened to the wonderful Work Programme the one that was set up at a cost of millions to the tax-payer to get people back to work?

Their biggest successes have been 16-24 yr old who have a bigger chance of finding employment anyway. The others, disalbled long term unemployed, mental issues, older generation have had little success.

I don't think anyone has said the unemployed should not be given things to do but if you are going to give employment via JSA thengive them the same rights as if setting them on as a real job. IT IS A JOB because payment is being received for doing it.

[Guest MattP]

It would be a hell of a crush. It could never work in practical terms.What about eating lunch, going to the toilet, health and safety issues such as emergency evacuation? Not to mention the fights that would break out.

 

Who would be helping them train or find work? I don't think the Jobcentre staff would be all that keen especially as there would never be enough of them to accomodate everyone in there. They are hardly capable of doing a decent job as it is.

 

The whole Job Centre wouldn't be doing that, this step would be designed for those who clearly have no hope of getting a job and appear to be workshy and playing the system. I'm amazed you think these numbers will be so enormous considering in every other thread relating to JSA you tell us these people are a such a small minority.

 

The top line is just nonsense, do you think people who work 35 hours a week don't go to the toilet, eat lunch or do fire drills?

 

If they can't manage that or manage to sit down without fighting for a few hours then we are ten times more fcuked that even I thought.

[Jon the Hat]

The principle is fine. There are plenty of charities that offer work programmes. DNO offer training but that has been pooh-oohed.

We have had young people on work experience. But if they are stuck in a job centre they cannot do the training. What has happened to the wonderful Work Programme the one that was set up at a cost of millions to the tax-payer to get people back to work?

Their biggest successes have been 16-24 yr old who have a bigger chance of finding employment anyway. The others, disalbled long term unemployed, mental issues, older generation have had little success.

I don't think anyone has said the unemployed should not be given things to do but if you are going to give employment via JSA thengive them the same rights as if setting them on as a real job. IT IS A JOB because payment is being received for doing it.

This kicks in after 3 years when the work programme stops.  This would push people into the available training schemes you mention.  There is a exception mention for people with special reasons for not being able to find work.

[Parafox]

There is lots of training available, this is clearly the stick with which to motivate those who know how to play the system, and are not interested in getting work.  I don't know where exactly you think I have given a standing ovation - perhaps you are so anti this idea that you think anyone talking about it sensibly is wrong.

 

As usual you pull out a few examples of he terrible impact this could in theory have on some people to banish the whole idea.  The idea is sound, and we have yet to see the details, so writing it off just seems to make you the kind of person who likes to criticise every idea that comes out, but not bring any constructive ideas to the table yourself.

 

 

Oh right. Actually I'm not dismissing the idea out of hand, if you read other post I have made you will see that I think the principle is fair. As you say, it's the practicalities and the detail that leaves so much to be desired. That and the simple fact that expecting someone to work for as little as £1.50 an hour is unfair. Would you do it?

 

You can sit in your ivory tower and look down on us poor working class folk. You come across as an arch Tory who is totally sold on every cack-handed idea they come out with, without question. You and MattP could be the same person.

[Guest]

What about if people save their fighting til their lunch break? Could call it a multitasking seminar

[Guest MattP]

You can sit in your ivory tower and look down on us poor working class folk. You come across as an arch Tory who is totally sold on every cack-handed idea they come out with, without question. You and MattP could be the same person.

 

You really have got to stop this thing you do where you accuse every single person who disagrees with you of being a Tory.

 

Don't get me wrong I'm flattered but I still don't know 100% where my voye is going in 2015.

What about if people save their fighting til their lunch break? Could call it a multitasking seminar

 

Me and Jon the Hat could watch and throw pennies into the circle for the winner.

[Jon the Hat]

Oh right. Actually I'm not dismissing the idea out of hand, if you read other post I have made you will see that I think the principle is fair. As you say, it's the practicalities and the detail that leaves so much to be desired. That and the simple fact that expecting someone to work for as little as £1.50 an hour is unfair. Would you do it?

 

You can sit in your ivory tower and look down on us poor working class folk. You come across as an arch Tory who is totally sold on every cack-handed idea they come out with, without question. You and MattP could be the same person.

 

Ah yes the old resorting to class tactic - you really are classic Labour aren't you?  Still no constructive ideas?  How would you get the long term unemployed back into an employable state?

 

You are again taking a minority who only recieve JSA as the example, when in most cases the poeple impact will be claiming other benefits a well.

[Parafox]

The whole Job Centre wouldn't be doing that, this step would be designed for those who clearly have no hope of getting a job and appear to be workshy and playing the system. I'm amazed you think these numbers will be so enormous considering in every other thread relating to JSA you tell us these people are a such a small minority.

 

The top line is just nonsense, do you think people who work 35 hours a week don't go to the toilet, eat lunch or do fire drills?

 

If they can't manage that or manage to sit down without fighting for a few hours then we are ten times more fcuked that even I thought.

 

For Christ's sake, splitting hairs or what.

 

The people who work 35 hrs a week work in a designated place of work with full H&S measures in place, refreshment areas (or canteens if you like), sufficient toilets as required by law to accomodate the number of workers in the building. Not a jobcentre with no public toilets or designated eating areas. The emergency exit, I would imagine, would be out of the door you came in by. Fine if there's a handfull of jobseekers in there but not if it's a citty centre Jobcentre full of people jostling to be seen and heard and becoming increasingly frustrated. Tensions run high in Jobcentre's Matt, I've been enough times to assaults, self-harmers and overdoses to know some of what I speak.

 

I don't recall having said in any other JSA thread anything about the percieved numbers of claimants, so I don't know where you got that from, unless you can quote me directly. There may well be only a handful of workshy scrounging scum in there at any one time. Equally there could be dozens. No-one knows. And with  benefits claimants being of such low intellect, they will all be knuckle-dragging neanderthal's.

What about if people save their fighting til their lunch break? Could call it a multitasking seminar

 

[Rincewind]

The Charles Street Centre has a notice up saying there is limited toilet facilities. It is meant for jobseekers to go in sign a form and leave as quick as possible. When it opens at  8.30 there is a queue going down Charles Street. The staff spend 15-20 minutes with each appointment from the time they start to the time they finish. At Charles Street you go in one door and out another to avoid congestion. I would imagine New Walk and Wellington Street are much the same as are every Job Centre in the Country. Plus their staff are being laid off now.

Apart from the often out of action machines they do not have adequate facilities for getting a job. You can job search but then you have to go away and apply in your own time. The staff will not apply for you. The information on their screen is the same as that on notice boards very limited details. The food drink facilities are also poor with maybe just a staff canteen. Job Centres are not designed to be day centres. They would need refitting, extra staff and extra security. At what cost?

[Guest MattP]

For Christ's sake, splitting hairs or what.

 

The people who work 35 hrs a week work in a designated place of work with full H&S measures in place, refreshment areas (or canteens if you like), sufficient toilets as required by law to accomodate the number of workers in the building. Not a jobcentre with no public toilets or designated eating areas. The emergency exit, I would imagine, would be out of the door you came in by. Fine if there's a handfull of jobseekers in there but not if it's a citty centre Jobcentre full of people jostling to be seen and heard and becoming increasingly frustrated. Tensions run high in Jobcentre's Matt, I've been enough times to assaults, self-harmers and overdoses to know some of what I speak.

 

Do you really not think the government will be thinking these things through and making sure that they will have the efficient facilities on offer to achieve what they want? Of course they will.

 

Tensions run high everywhere, normal workplaces, hospitals, doctors surgery, sports events, if people cause trouble in any enviroment that need to be dealt with in the proper form.

 

It just seems you have looked at this and thought "Tories, poor, work, benefits" so it means, nope, can't work. No point discussing it.

 

Least they are trying something.

[MooseBreath]

It would be a hell of a crush. It could never work in practical terms.What about eating lunch, going to the toilet, health and safety issues such as emergency evacuation? Not to mention the fights that would break out.

Who would be helping them train or find work? I don't think the Jobcentre staff would be all that keen especially as there would never be enough of them to accomodate everyone in there. They are hardly capable of doing a decent job as it is.

This is easily one of the worst posts I've ever seen on here. It's actually ludicrous. You're making Rincewind look like an intellectual in comparison.

[Guest MattP]

This is easily one of the worst posts I've ever seen on here. It's actually ludicrous. You're making Rincewind look like an intellectual in comparison.

 

[Parafox]

Do you really not think the government will be thinking these things through and making sure that they will have the efficient facilities on offer to achieve what they want? Of course they will.

 

Tensions run high everywhere, normal workplaces, hospitals, doctors surgery, sports events, if people cause trouble in any enviroment that need to be dealt with in the proper form.

 

It just seems you have looked at this and thought "Tories, poor, work, benefits" so it means, nope, can't work. No point discussing it.

 

Least they are trying something.

 

If there was no point discussing it i would bother putting in the number of counter-arguments in against it that I have, nor would I have responded to you by "discussing" it with you.

 

You seem to have got stuck on me being wholly anti-Tory, which actually isn't the case. It is simply my view that they have chucked this out in the Tory conference to make the blue-rinse brigade chatter their teeth at the prospect of further penalising the unemployed and they haven't actually put forward any details. It's been done simply to throw fodder to the Tory hawks and grab the headlines. Radio 5 have been slavering over this for 2 days.

 

Trying something doesn't mean they're trying the best thing. Or the right thing.

[Parafox]

This is easily one of the worst posts I've ever seen on here. It's actually ludicrous. You're making Rincewind look like an intellectual in comparison.

 

Who gives a **** what your opinion is. It's always right, after all.

[Guest MattP]

If there was no point discussing it i would bother putting in the number of counter-arguments in against it that I have, nor would I have responded to you by "discussing" it with you.

 

You seem to have got stuck on me being wholly anti-Tory, which actually isn't the case. It is simply my view that they have chucked this out in the Tory conference to make the blue-rinse brigade chatter their teeth at the prospect of further penalising the unemployed and they haven't actually put forward any details. It's been done simply to throw fodder to the Tory hawks and grab the headlines. Radio 5 have been slavering over this for 2 days.

 

Trying something doesn't mean they're trying the best thing. Or the right thing.

 

You're not anti-Tory at all, I mean your first post in here only contained the word "Cuntservatives" - that's a man clearly with a impassive position towards them.

 

And if the BBC are slavering over Tory policy that's even more convincing of it's righteousness.