Adam I wrote:

big_dave wrote:These weren't picturesque Park Keeper/Dustbin Man type manual jobs or cheery community fare, but stuff like shelf stacker or telesales. I do not benefit from this sort of 'customer service', in fact it barely needs to be performed at all. Not wishing to belittle those that take the jobs, but those jobs are needless exploitation and they are crap.

Are you genuinely suggesting that every adult in this country should have the option of no-strings dole/housing benefit if they so choose, rather than being forced into jobs they don't fancy?

This seems incredible to me. How would you pay for this?

How would you find a person work who has had a change of heart after 25 years of dole and decided that they wish to work, although they have not once in their adult lives experienced employment?

People on this forum like to imagine that I say a bunch of things.

No, I am just saying that is unfortunate that some people have no other choice that to work terrible jobs and sad that the UK job centre will try and put everyone in the same sort of job even though funding and welfare driven training positions are an option.

This probably has a lot to do with how over worked the staff are at job centres, but a certain amount of it has to do with the way that welfare claimants are viewed with suspition by people who begrudge them their welfare cheques.

What would really be great would be if a training programme of some sort was included before the job centre starts its "three strikes and out" process for JSA. Regardless of the age and ability of the claimant, or the claimants reason for claiming in the first place.

Adam I wrote:They'd be on carers allowance, carers premium and income support, not job seekers etc.

Income support is viewed with just as much suspicion as JSA. In fact, it is almost code for "chav".

big_dave wrote:
People on this forum like to imagine that I say a bunch of things.

No, I am just saying that is unfortunate that some people have no other choice that to work terrible jobs and sad that the UK job centre will try and put everyone in the same sort of job even though funding and welfare driven training positions are an option.

Fair enough, I apologise.

Regarding your point here though, how else would you place a person who cannot otherwise find work (or chooses not to find work) but in a comparatively crappy job?

I have a comparatively crappy job (for example) because 1 my saleable skills and experience are not easily applicable to positions available locally, 2 my family set-up precludes working at certain times due to child-care.

That's the reality of my position - employers (locally) don't want much of what I have to sell, so I must rely on what I have to offer that they do want.

I don't see how the issue of 'terrible' jobs could be resolved without a totally rebuilt society and economy. Ultimately somebody has to do the shitty jobs, and some people will have to rely on selling services to employers that they might rather not depend on.

Perhaps the problem is one of how one defines oneself relative to one's work?

'Terrible jobs' are but a means to (short term) financial stability - perhaps if there wasn't such stigma attached to having a 'terrible job', people might be less inclined to resist them? Surely we can agree that most would be better off (in terms of finance and health) after 6 months of a terrible job than after 6 months of benefit dependence?

big_dave wrote:Income support is viewed with just as much suspicion as JSA. In fact, it is almost code for "chav".

Perhaps, but probably not when issued in support of carers allowance.

chairman_hall wrote:I work with plenty of people who have been on benefit for over two years, who can't work because they are incapacitated and/or they have childcare commitments. People who would love the chance to work.

They don't fit the category. If you are genuinely incapacitated then of course you should receive incapacity benefit. I personally have controversial questions about what that means exactly and, while I'm at it here are a couple:

Why should depression be a reason for everyone else to pay for depressed people to do nothing (almost certainly leading to more depression)? I would think Councilling should be offered - not handouts.

Back problems - while obviously varying in intensity why do they prevent someone from working for the rest of their lives? Why can people not be trained to do something not involving heavy lifting?

I will add that the above two are the easiest problems to fake and defraud the tax payer with. I know people who have faked both and continue to do so but I do not assume that everyone on incapacity benefit is faking it.

Shouldn't parents who habitually have more kids while on the dole be discouraged from having more until they can support them? The organisation that forces both parties to pay for the upkeep should be better organised so it can do what it's supposed to.

Chairman - in your job do you not come across people who blatantly can't be arsed working and have no intention of doing so if they can get away with it?

And regards Dave's mention of training (if I understand what he said, he's so inarticulate it's often like penetrating code) - as far as I am aware training is offered to the unemployed through Job Centres - I don't know for certain but I doubt that would stop under this plan.

In two years a person can do a lot of training to assist them in climbing onto the particular career ladder they might want to climb.

Oh and here it is again (try and turn your PC filter off and imagine that no-one is going to think that you think all people on benefits are conning the system):

Earwicker wrote: if someone decides to live their life having working people pay them a living fee (and let's not forget their council tax and their housing benefit etc etc etc) without wanting or looking for work do you think they are being fair to society at large?

or not?

"Defraud the tax payer"

Haha.

Earwicker wrote:And regards Dave's mention of training (if I understand what he said, he's so inarticulate it's often like penetrating code) - as far as I am aware training is offered to the unemployed through Job Centres - I don't know for certain but I doubt that would stop under this plan.

No it isn't.

You actually aren't allowed to train while signing-on for JSA unless it's less than (I can't remember exactly) 8 hours a week or something? Obviously you can train and not tell the DWP that you're training (fraudulently claim), but the Job Centre offers no training (beyond 'how to fill in an application form' etc) while on JSA.

I believe that the long-term unemployed might be allowed to re-train, but I'm not certain.

Adam I wrote:I believe that the long-term unemployed might be allowed to re-train, but I'm not certain.

If you're 18-24 unemployed for over 6 months, you qualify for "New Deal". 2 of my friends have been on the "New Deal for Musicians". The government gave them £570 to buy musical equipment.

If you're over 24, you have to be unemployed for 18 months to qualify for New Deal (I think).

Adam I wrote:Fair enough, I apologise.

Regarding your point here though, how else would you place a person who cannot otherwise find work (or chooses not to find work) but in a comparatively crappy job?

The system should require them to take work, but you should get a longer period of time to apply for other work.

Job Centre seems to presume that holding out for a desirable job = welfare fraud. This isn't the case.

I don't see how the issue of 'terrible' jobs could be resolved without a totally rebuilt society and economy. Ultimately somebody has to do the shitty jobs, and some people will have to rely on selling services to employers that they might rather not depend on.

Perhaps the problem is one of how one defines oneself relative to one's work?

'Terrible jobs' are but a means to (short term) financial stability - perhaps if there wasn't such stigma attached to having a 'terrible job', people might be less inclined to resist them? Surely we can agree that most would be better off (in terms of finance and health) after 6 months of a terrible job than after 6 months of benefit dependence?

I don't like to reduce the job market to supply and demand. The service offered by a place of work is secondary to the work itself. That is why it exists, and for the most part it does so because those who make decisions and are there 9-5 everyday decide it to be that way.

There will always be shite jobs, but over the past decades the good-to-shite ratio has improved immeasurably. This is more to do with the self-awareness and education of the workforce, who want to work in satisfying and comfortable environments.

The conservative reaction seems to be "well, someone has to do it". In the case of many of the most appalling jobs (factory work, telesales, fastfood service), the reality is that those jobs are not necessities and are evidence of the control that is exerted over the workforce by larger employers and conservative welfare policy. Actual "shite jobs" that provide a necessary service are relatively few and far between compared to telesales and production labour.

Compare minimum wage work carried out by the working poor to the minimum wage jobs taken by students and graduates. There is a marked difference in standard, in favour of those who will not be perceived as working that sort of job indefinitely. Self-awareness and education is a solution, as well as the means to wait for something comfortable with a future. I would like welfare to provide this means, but perhaps not indefinitely.

The conditions that people find themselves under 35-45 hours a week is a big issue, a bigger issue that whether or not NI contributions are being spent on idle people.

Nico Adie wrote:

Adam I wrote:I believe that the long-term unemployed might be allowed to re-train, but I'm not certain.

If you're 18-24 unemployed for over 6 months, you qualify for "New Deal". 2 of my friends have been on the "New Deal for Musicians". The government gave them £570 to buy musical equipment.

If you're over 24, you have to be unemployed for 18 months to qualify for New Deal (I think).

Not sure about the young persons one but there is an over 50s version on which you are entitled to retraining after 6 months on the JSA.
I know because my mother was on it until very recently.

Ideally people would be offered the Deal - both young and old - straight away but this does mean that training is offered, or at least supported by the Benefits Agency.

Oh yeah, I noticed still no one is answering this:

Earwicker wrote:if someone decides to live their life having working people pay them a living fee (and let's not forget their council tax and their housing benefit etc etc etc) without wanting or looking for work do you think they are being fair to society at large?

or not?

big_dave wrote:The system should require them to take work, but you should get a longer period of time to apply for other work.

What period of time would suit you?

big_dave wrote:The conditions that people find themselves under 35-45 hours a week is a big issue, a bigger issue that whether or not NI contributions are being spent on idle people.

I agree (though the two issues are almost certainly linked) and, as I have already stated corporate tax fraud is a much greater problem - but this thread isn't about that.

Just because there are greater problems doesn't mean the smaller ones shouldn't be discussed.
I would also agree that this Tory move is headline grabbing politicking (and I also said I suspected it's not the best solution) but that still doesn't mean there isn't an issue to be looked at.

Seems to me you'd prefer to just ignore that selfishness is a problem in our society full stop.
I presume from people's refusal or inability to answer the question I keep asking that you think it's fine for everyone else to keep paying the lazy to continue to be lazy.

How would you define selfishness and laziness in the lives of the poor? Who should they be working for? How would you like someone to talk about your life in terms of social usefulness?

Yes, I think its fine for the poor to be lazy on welfare. It is not my life, and it is not for me to fret about what they do with opportunities and welfare that it is their right to have.

To reiterate, it is there right to have it no matter what they do with it, and while I think there should be aids in place to enable to get the most of it, we cannot force them or blackmail them by threatening to cut off welfare. It is not our job to police them for crimes against the protestant work ethic.

That it means a few bucks more per week get taken from my paycheque, means absolutely nothing to me.