Leicester using workfare

[MrBojangles]

It would be, if it was a proper job for a proper wage paid for by the club. Don't disagree with the contributing to society mind.

But the taxpayer meets the cost regardless. Business may benefit here but the current alternative is that no one benefits except the jobseeker who can't be bothered to seek a job

[Guest]

I don't have a problem wth the idea of people having to work for their benefits whilst they wait for a job they like, but they should be paid minimum wage.

[leicsmac]

Everyone on this scheme is on housing benefit as well. The average housing benefit payment is about £400 per month, for accommodation which would be at least £450 on the private market. Plus your £300 per month JSA, in return for about 25 hours work a week, that's almost £10 per hour. So the low pay argument is nonsense.

The other argument says that if there is a job that needs doing, the business should employ someone to do it. That doesn't work because these jobs aren't really jobs. Businesses wouldn't pay out of their own pocket for people to do this work. The end product is not worth the cost, so they would just do without.

By effectively covering their wages, the government is incentivising businesses to create what amount to work experience positions, in the hope that it will help the unemployed back into employment.

It's a pretty good idea if you ask me. Obviously it is open to abuse and would therefore need to be tightly monitored which is why I would assume it is being tightly monitored.

 

Then they should. Taxpayers money shouldn't be going to the improvement of private businesses, they should be paying for it themselves.

 

But you make a good point with the rest as usual. Though surely it would be simpler for businesses to take on staff on a temporary contract and have benefits suspended for that time though, saving some money and paperwork?

 

Also, the whole thing just seems so transient to me, but perhaps that's the way the workplace is heading these days, less job security. If you don't know where your next job placement/payment is going to come from it can be a bit depressing as it's tough to plan ahead.

[MooseBreath]

Then they should. Taxpayers money shouldn't be going to the improvement of private businesses, they should be paying for it themselves.

But you make a good point with the rest as usual. Though surely it would be simpler for businesses to take on staff on a temporary contract and have benefits suspended for that time though, saving some money and paperwork?

Also, the whole thing just seems so transient to me, but perhaps that's the way the workplace is heading these days, less job security.

You can't force private businesses to take on and pay for employees they don't need. The government can only offer incentives. One way to do that is by reducing tax on business, but we all know how unpopular that would be with the voting masses in the current climate. Plus they would only end up employing people who are skilled and willing to work which would largely miss the target of getting the long term unemployed back into work. With this scheme you are hitting that target directly. It's not perfect by any means but it's worth a go.

[leicsmac]

You can't force private businesses to take on and pay for employees they don't need. The government can only offer incentives. One way to do that is by reducing tax on business, but we all know how unpopular that would be with the voting masses in the current climate. Plus they would only end up employing people who are skilled and willing to work which would largely miss the target of getting the long term unemployed back into work. With this scheme you are hitting that target directly. It's not perfect by any means but it's worth a go.

 

But they evidently do need these people (if only in the short term), otherwise I'm assuming they wouldn't be asking the Government for a piece of the action. Just all seems a bit unnecessary. I'm all for incentivising businesses to take on more staff, but don't think this is the way as it's just a temporary sticking plaster over a gaping wound in that respect.

 

Do agree that it should target the long-term unemployed though. 

[leicsmac]

But the taxpayer meets the cost regardless. Business may benefit here but the current alternative is that no one benefits except the jobseeker who can't be bothered to seek a job

 

Yeah, hence my point earlier in this thread that if a benefit recipient refuses two minimum wage jobs put on a plate for him without a damned good reason the benefits should stop. That would get people taking those jobs, even if they were only temporary. The Government should incentivise these companies to take on staff, then present the jobs to the unemployed, and from there payment should be met by the business.

 

Honestly, I think this is a waste of public money. These people are still benefit recipients, but now they're working benefit recipients. Don't see the logic, not if the company isn't going to pick up the slack sometime along the line.

[davieG]

I would imagine in many case the work that will be done will be of a temporary nature within the business and probably something the business could manage without or jobs that just wouldn't get done at all.

 

From my experience as a manager we had plenty of tasks that we just could not justify doing as they were not vital to the end aim often they were of a cosmetic nature such as part of a reorganisation of facilities or information. There was also a tendency to use apprentices for these types of tasks which to my mind would be a greater evil.

 

Many times the workforce themselves actually volunteered to do some of these tasks unpaid and in the evenings/weekends as it made their jobs "tidier".

[Weller in Tights]

Read over these pages.

Wow, quite a few Norman Tebbits on this forum.

Shall we stick to football? It's quite scary how right wing many members are.

We will have to agree to differ so we can stay off the politics!!

[jamesmilner]

I don't know about the rights and wrongs of this scheme whether due to how much you earn etc is exploitation but i would argue that it is still work experience.

 

for example:

 

Working in a team

Working to instructions

Attendance

Effort, doing a good job no matter how 'shit' it is

Understanding what committing to a 'job' requires in terms of sacrificing your personal wants

 

I firmly believe that everyone whatever their status should and would benefit from doing a stint at some of the most mind numbing tasks that people have to endure with the hope that they remember what it was like when they eventually reach a position of influence over those very same or similar jobs.

work experience cleaning seats ? yeah ok , we'd all want that wouldnt we on our cv ? behave .

[dynamark]

Its not about the nature of the work its about turning up on time day after day doing the task working with others etc.Work is not always great but to take a place in society you need to earn and pay your way.

[davieG]

work experience cleaning seats ? yeah ok , we'd all want that wouldnt we on our cv ? behave .

Plenty of people's real full time jobs involves doing worst than that and you obviously didn't read what I said.

[Bayfox]

work experience cleaning seats ? yeah ok , we'd all want that wouldnt we on our cv ? behave .

Cv

I have spent the last 6 months sat on my arse doing ****ing all and just wanking over fat american birds on the jeremy kyle show.

Or cv

I have spent the last 6 months trying to earn my benefits by cleaning up my local football club.

I have arrived on time every day and finished every shift. It gave me a sense of pride and wellbeing.

Lcfc will give me a reference if you ask.

I can tell you, who i'd give more than 5 secs of my time.

[leicsmac]

Cv

I have spent the last 6 months sat on my arse doing ****ing all and just wanking over fat american birds on the jeremy kyle show.

Or cv

I have spent the last 6 months trying to earn my benefits by cleaning up my local football club.

I have arrived on time every day and finished every shift. It gave me a sense of pride and wellbeing.

Lcfc will give me a reference if you ask.

I can tell you, who i'd give more than 5 secs of my time.

 

Once again, the scheme itself is not the problem, it's a great idea. It's the cackhanded and borderline illegal way that it is implemented that is.

[Bayfox]

Once again, the scheme itself is not the problem, it's a great idea. It's the cackhanded and borderline illegal way that it is implemented that is.

Yeah thanks i get that.

But all this bias shit towards its wrong it's illegal. Ffs how about people do something to pay their way.

I'd happily see people clean the street for free to earn. Jsa, housing benefit whatever it maybe.

Read back my posts and i have seen both sides and if i lose my job at the end of the year i'd be happy to do a shit job rather than fcuk all. To pay my way.

[leicsmac]

Yeah thanks i get that.

But all this bias shit towards its wrong it's illegal. Ffs how about people do something to pay their way.

I'd happily see people clean the street for free to earn. Jsa, housing benefit whatever it maybe.

Read back my posts and i have seen both sides and if i lose my job at the end of the year i'd be happy to do a shit job rather than fcuk all. To pay my way.

 

No disagreement there. If it gives people enough to live off (and pays the legal minimum wage) and gets them off benefits I'm all for lots of opportunities for people to get stuck into jobs and be treated harshly if they don't have a good reason not to do so.

[Webbo]

These people are long term unemployed, if the club had to pay them themselves they'd employ someone else or do without. Do you think there's a huge demand for these people? If they were capable of getting a job on minimum wage or really wanted one they'd be doing it already.

[Bayfox]

No disagreement there. If it gives people enough to live off (and pays the legal minimum wage) and gets them off benefits I'm all for lots of opportunities for people to get stuck into jobs and be treated harshly if they don't have a good reason not to do so.

The minimum wage is not the issue here. People in this position are not able to find a job. So therefore getting money for nothing.

So surely doing something for it is win-win. Gives them something to do. Shows them as willing and looks good to future employees.

[foxes4e4]

check put the rates for apprentiships etc, its not quite exploitation. Being on benifits should not be an easy option, it should be worse than work otherwise there is no incentive.

totally, too many people wanting something for nothing if you want benefits then you shouold work to earn them

[leicsmac]

These people are long term unemployed, if the club had to pay them themselves they'd employ someone else or do without. Do you think there's a huge demand for these people? If they were capable of getting a job on minimum wage or really wanted one they'd be doing it already.

 

Then take a hard line, as I have said. Offer them the job or losing benefits. That would clear their minds some. As for the club, surely it wouldn't matter who came in to sort out the seats as long as they did a decent job? Apply positive pressure on both sides - pressure the long term unemployed to take the work, pressure companies to offer it to them.

 

The minimum wage is not the issue here. People in this position are not able to find a job. So therefore getting money for nothing.

So surely doing something for it is win-win. Gives them something to do. Shows them as willing and looks good to future employees.

 

Au contraire, the minimum wage is entirely the issue here. That and the fact that companies are getting a free ride. I totally agree that people should be doing something for their money for exactly the reasons you've said, but the Government shouldn't be involved beyond liasing with the companies, and certainly not paying for it. For me taxpayers money going to a someone contributing to a private company is no different from it going to a feckless layabout, not if that company is not actively benefitting the country. 

 

Infrastructure projects that benefit the country as a whole though...that would be a different matter.

 

But I think this argument is getting rather circular now.

[Guest ttfn]

People in being asked to work for money shocker.

[DennisNedry]

Jobseekers is given to you when you lose your job. It's about £65 a week. Working 6.5 hours for five days a week for £65 = £2 an hour, £4 an hour less than minimum wage. Why should anyone be made to work for that? Minimum wage is barely enough to survive as it is.

 

If there's a job that needs doing, the club should pay someone to do it - at minimum wage at least.

 

I've been on earning under minimum wage for nearly 18 months, it's called an apprenticeship

[Webbo]

Then take a hard line, as I have said. Offer them the job or losing benefits. That would clear their minds some. As for the club, surely it wouldn't matter who came in to sort out the seats as long as they did a decent job? Apply positive pressure on both sides - pressure the long term unemployed to take the work, pressure companies to offer it to them.

 

You can't pressure companies into employing people they don't need, you'd end up putting some companies out of business, creating more unemployment.

[Weller in Tights]

Listen carefully, you can hear the Jack boots marching as Foxes Talk sorts out the country!!!

An awful lot of Daily Mail and Sun readers on here.

Stick to football lads.

[leicsmac]

You can't pressure companies into employing people they don't need, you'd end up putting some companies out of business, creating more unemployment.

 

True, then focus on the ones that require staff. Like the ones who are being used in the present scheme.

[Bayfox]

Then take a hard line, as I have said. Offer them the job or losing benefits. That would clear their minds some. As for the club, surely it wouldn't matter who came in to sort out the seats as long as they did a decent job? Apply positive pressure on both sides - pressure the long term unemployed to take the work, pressure companies to offer it to them.

Au contraire, the minimum wage is entirely the issue here. That and the fact that companies are getting a free ride. I totally agree that people should be doing something for their money for exactly the reasons you've said, but the Government shouldn't be involved beyond liasing with the companies, and certainly not paying for it. For me taxpayers money going to a someone contributing to a private company is no different from it going to a feckless layabout, not if that company is not actively benefitting the country.

Infrastructure projects that benefit the country as a whole though...that would be a different matter.

But I think this argument is getting rather circular now.

Granted this topic is either black or white to most but i still think doing something is better than getting it for **** all.

As for giving them employment from infrastructure projects. Great if they have a qualification that allows that. But can you imagine the cost to the tax payer if a bridge or something the build comes down. Law suit.