Zingari Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 Yes i suppose your right Moose , but it does open up the very real chance of over zealous DHS staff causing devastation to families . It's not like parking fine targets .
MooseBreath Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 Yes i suppose your right Moose , but it does open up the very real chance of over zealous DHS staff causing devastation to families . It's not like parking fine targets . I would like to think they tried other things before they went for targets, like letting things play out naturally and then analysing the numbers at individual centre-level, then for the centres with low numbers look for reasons why, provide training if necessary etc. but if none of that works then targets are the way to go. You can't have people claiming JSA when they're not legitimately seeking work. It takes money away from the real victims, those who are working hard but can't afford to feed their kids because they're paying so much in tax which is then given straight to the workshy. Some people will always get caught in the crossfire, i'd much rather it was those seeking handouts than those who are getting up for work every morning.
flowwolf Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 What is wrong with means testing ? If you are genuinly out of work and are trying to get one but with no result why should you object to someone from the government assessing you ? It's not your money it's tax payers money. Why not get all those claimng unemployment benifit who are fit and able to turn up on Monday mornings and start filling in potholes or doing litter picking or cleaning up waste areas ? Pay them the average wage to give them some self respect and if they refuse ---No benifits simple.
Zingari Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 What is wrong with means testing ? If you are genuinly out of work and are trying to get one but with no result why should you object to someone from the government assessing you ? It's not your money it's tax payers money. Why not get all those claimng unemployment benifit who are fit and able to turn up on Monday mornings and start filling in potholes or doing litter picking or cleaning up waste areas ? Pay them the average wage to give them some self respect and if they refuse ---No benifits simple. Why not make these jobs that so obviously are in need of being done , into proper jobs .
flowwolf Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 Why not make these jobs that so obviously are in need of being done , into proper jobs . Exactly.
Sly Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 I've never understood why they don't put people claiming benefits to work for the local council. Even basic work like litter picking, etc etc at least make them work for the £70 odd a week!
pSinatra Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 I've never understood why they don't put people claiming benefits to work for the local council. Even basic work like litter picking, etc etc at least make them work for the £70 odd a week! There are already people doing these jobs for the council. Give unemployed people jobs with the council & pay them the same as the people already working for the council.........or drop the wages of the council people to a level enjoyed by the unemployed? Having worked for my local district council, I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn how much a litter picker/dog bin emptier earns.
leicsmac Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 I've never understood why they don't put people claiming benefits to work for the local council. Even basic work like litter picking, etc etc at least make them work for the £70 odd a week! Nope. You give them a job, you pay them the minimum wage. At least. Do agree with the idea though.
Zingari Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 I've never understood why they don't put people claiming benefits to work for the local council. Even basic work like litter picking, etc etc at least make them work for the £70 odd a week! How does this differ from slavery , other than the fact that they have to buy their own food, rent clothes etc Why not just give them free clothes rent and food and just call it what it is .
Sly Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 There are already people doing these jobs for the council. Give unemployed people jobs with the council & pay them the same as the people already working for the council.........or drop the wages of the council people to a level enjoyed by the unemployed? Having worked for my local district council, I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn how much a litter picker/dog bin emptier earns. I just opted for that job to be honest. Any job will do. Altough additional litter pickers won't go a miss! They could also go around sorting vandalism, painting etc etc Another thing I've never understood, why are they given cash and not vouchers to claim food, nappies etc and allocated vouchers?
Zingari Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 I just opted for that job to be honest. Any job will do. Altough additional litter pickers won't go a miss! They could also go around sorting vandalism, painting etc etc Another thing I've never understood, why are they given cash and not vouchers to claim food, nappies etc and allocated vouchers? Maybe one day you'll be one of "they", will you think the same way then do you think ?
leicsmac Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 I just opted for that job to be honest. Any job will do. Altough additional litter pickers won't go a miss! They could also go around sorting vandalism, painting etc etc Another thing I've never understood, why are they given cash and not vouchers to claim food, nappies etc and allocated vouchers? The idea in principle is fine (though I'm not keen on it myself), but there would be a quick black market springing up as the claimants sell their vouchers for cash. I suppose there are ways (such as having photo ID when redeeming the vouchers) that you could reduce the fraud, but I don't know how effective they'd be.
Sly Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 How does this differ from slavery , other than the fact that they have to buy their own food, rent clothes etc Why not just give them free clothes rent and food and just call it what it is . Well I never said they'd be held to it! They'd have the option of applying for other jobs. At least it might spark people into applying for other stuff, rather than taking the £70 straight to the local pub / betting shop and blowing it all in one day. At the end of the day, the problem is not the short term unemployed. It's the long term unemployed, as it's breed generation, through generation. Without direct action, would this section of unemployed people actively look for a job. It'd purely be more of a catalyst than anything else. Maybe one day you'll be one of "they", will you think the same way then do you think ? Yes
Zingari Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 Put shackles and manacles on the workshy fookers too . How come we're always convinced that the amount of workshy layabouts is always the same as the amount of unemployed ? Why do workshy layabouts become model decent hardworking citizens in the good times of low unemployment but revert back again during lean times of high unemployment?
Sly Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 The idea in principle is fine (though I'm not keen on it myself), but there would be a quick black market springing up as the claimants sell their vouchers for cash. I suppose there are ways (such as having photo ID when redeeming the vouchers) that you could reduce the fraud, but I don't know how effective they'd be. I understand what your saying, the system does have flaws but then again, any system that's implemened would be. I suppose it's not far from rationing. You'd have further problems on where you could claim said vouchers as well I suppose. I'm sure Tesco would be all over this though.
Zingari Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 Well I never said they'd be held to it! They'd have the option of applying for other jobs. At least it might spark people into applying for other stuff, rather than taking the £70 straight to the local pub / betting shop and blowing it all in one day. At the end of the day, the problem is not the short term unemployed. It's the long term unemployed, as it's breed generation, through generation. Without direct action, would this section of unemployed people actively look for a job. It'd purely be more of a catalyst than anything else. Yes I rather doubt that , I've heard it all too often.
BoneDog Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 On East Midlands Today a week or two ago they said that in the Derby area there are 30 or so applicants for each available job. Not sure what most job seekers are supposed to do barring hope for the best. Can't be that easy to get a new job for many of them.
pSinatra Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 Do the unemployed not deserve a little dignity? The video showed a man who was earning £2000 a month & within the matter of weeks he was begging on the street. Can you imagine how demoralising that must be for him or for anyone? He has failed himself & his family. Nobody is suggesting giving anyone a free ride, but it must be tempting for someone in his position to blow his giro on paracetamol & put an end to it all. There are twats that are in a position to abuse the system, but the vast majority do not.
Sly Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 Put shackles and manacles on the workshy fookers too . How come we're always convinced that the amount of workshy layabouts is always the same as the amount of unemployed ? Why do workshy layabouts become model decent hardworking citizens in the good times of low unemployment but revert back again during lean times of high unemployment? Ha Ha .... that's a bit far!! Quite clearly it isn't, and to quote yourself, you'll always have "Workshy layabouts". How do you propose we address the issue? The other side of the coin is that the country as a whole needs jobs for people to be employed in. As the country has become more of a distribution centre and we now import more than we export, that issue also needs addressing.
Rincewind Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 There are already people doing these jobs for the council. Give unemployed people jobs with the council & pay them the same as the people already working for the council.........or drop the wages of the council people to a level enjoyed by the unemployed? Having worked for my local district council, I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn how much a litter picker/dog bin emptier earns. The council use agengies for street cleaning and litter pickers who are payed minimum wages whilst those employed by the council are paid much higher wages. They also do not have to pay holiday pay or other entitlements. It is hard work and you have to be fit. I did it for a few days but found my fitness levels were not high enough and therefore too slow.
Sly Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 On East Midlands Today a week or two ago they said that in the Derby area there are 30 or so applicants for each available job. Not sure what most job seekers are supposed to do barring hope for the best. Can't be that easy to get a new job for many of them. I'm surprised it's that low really, I thought it would be upward of 50.
Rincewind Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 For jobs like cleaners there are upward of applicants and some of those have high qualifications because they cannot find work for what they are qualified for after redundancy.
Leicfox Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 What is wrong with means testing ? If you are genuinly out of work and are trying to get one but with no result why should you object to someone from the government assessing you ? It's not your money it's tax payers money. Why not get all those claimng unemployment benifit who are fit and able to turn up on Monday mornings and start filling in potholes or doing litter picking or cleaning up waste areas ? Pay them the average wage to give them some self respect and if they refuse ---No benifits simple. I'm sure there's plenty of people currently out of work that have previously paid their dues in tax from previous jobs. The overwhelming majority who claim JSA benefit each year spend at least three quarters of their time in work, of that 40% have never claimed before and it comes as a shock and It's only a small minority around 11% that stay on the dole long term. The 11% need rinsing out but if we carry on labelling all out of work people scroungers, today's striver's will become tomorrows scroungers and losing a job can happen to anyone of us.
Sly Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 For jobs like cleaners there are upward of applicants and some of those have high qualifications because they cannot find work for what they are qualified for after redundancy. We, as a country do need to generate more working opportunities at all levels. With all the mass redudancies throughout the past 3 - 4 years, so many people have taken jobs at a lower level than they have previously worked, which in term acts like a domino effect downwards. One question though, if the media painted a better picture of the economy, would that give consumers more confidence to spend? Are people saving money for a rainy day, just in case they are made redundant? Money makes the world go around at the end of the day.
Sly Posted 24 March 2013 Posted 24 March 2013 What is wrong with means testing ? If you are genuinly out of work and are trying to get one but with no result why should you object to someone from the government assessing you ? It's not your money it's tax payers money. Why not get all those claimng unemployment benifit who are fit and able to turn up on Monday mornings and start filling in potholes or doing litter picking or cleaning up waste areas ? Pay them the average wage to give them some self respect and if they refuse ---No benifits simple. We wouldn't have so many potholes if they were repaired correctly in the first place. I've seen one's which have just been stuffed with asphalt and it doesn't even knit together!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.