Boycott Workfare

[shaithis]

For me, I just have to look at the number of immigrants in the last 10 years and then at the total unemployment figure today.....

Yes, other countries would look worse......but why should the UK keep shouldering this crap when we have over 2m unemployed?

And now it's even worse as we have a new generation of teenagers coming through who has seen all the news about immigrants living "a life of Riley" off of the state and feel that if immigrants can get away with it, so should they......and now most youngsters are expecting the UK to deliver them everything for nothing.

Way too many scroungers.

[TheAnimus]

(compared to the UK's lousy £67.50/w).

So the only correlation we've established here between benefits and employment is that the unemployed in a welfare state are able to eat and not represent a massive burden to the medical system.

Anyone unable to live on £67.50 a week, who suffers from malnutrition in a manner that requires medical attention is surely either, ill to begin with, a shocking indightment of a bad school system that fails to teach basic life skills which are lacking, a sign of a care in the community case sadly failing again all too often we don't give help to those who suffer from mental issues who clearly need them

I can't think of another scenario, and in all those 3 its not the job of the job seekers allowance to deal with it.

[Unique]

Anyone unable to live on £67.50 a week, who suffers from malnutrition in a manner that requires medical attention is surely either, ill to begin with, a shocking indightment of a bad school system that fails to teach basic life skills which are lacking, a sign of a care in the community case sadly failing again all too often we don't give help to those who suffer from mental issues who clearly need them

I can't think of another scenario, and in all those 3 its not the job of the job seekers allowance to deal with it.

it really depends on your other outgoings though, but malnutrition is a step too far

i mean a single person made redundant today who has less than 2 years service so not entitled to redundancy pay, but has an expensive mortage plus a pile of other direct debits, such as insurance, gas, electric, tv licence, sky/VM package, and credit card bills, none of which can be easily stopped if stopped at all, going from a reasonably well paid job to the dole, would struggle, as the £67 would be destroyed by the D/D's. and just because someone had a decent paying job doesn't mean they have savings. in fact they could be up to it in debt, overdraft, you name it, which is common today

but how should we really help people in that situation? should we help them more? or not?

on the other hand you have people who still live at home with parents, getting the same £67, but not having to pay rent, council tax, etc etc as parents pay for it as their child is out of work. so that £67 is pocket money to spend on computer games etc. no motivation to get a job they don't like

or you have your shameless lot of professional claimants that screw the system for every penny they can, and live a life more reasonable than others who work full time. if you take the first guy going from a decent paying job to a NMW one, he could still struggle to get by with his debts, and have less free cash at the end of the week than your pro claimants

so sometimes people get too little. sometimes too much. and it's getting too much in benefits that's a problem, as it's not getting people out to work. i know at least a couple of people who have been unemployed since the 90s with no real intention of getting a job as they live comfortably on benefits with flat screen tellys, laptops, playstations, you name it. the old booze and fags, and not a single days work in over a decade. whilst i know others who have worked full time during the whole period and have struggled through it, and not lived a life of reilly but have considerable debts just making ends meet

[TheAnimus]

As harsh as the repercussions are, I think that person in those circumstances should become bankrupt!

If someone is living a lifestyle which means they are doing the financial equiviolent of treading water, I really don't think its the tax payers job to provide them with luxury.

[TeePee]

If bad choices have no repercussions, then what motivation is there to make good choices?

[aidanjt]

Anyone unable to live on £67.50 a week, who suffers from malnutrition in a manner that requires medical attention is surely either, ill to begin with, a shocking indightment of a bad school system that fails to teach basic life skills which are lacking, a sign of a care in the community case sadly failing again all too often we don't give help to those who suffer from mental issues who clearly need them

I can't think of another scenario, and in all those 3 its not the job of the job seekers allowance to deal with it.

What are you talking about? I said welfare staves off starvation, meaning £0/w = a lot of sick or dead people, not £67.50. The point being that there's no correlation between welfare and employment beyond having it means unemployed *don't* starve.

[Unique]

As harsh as the repercussions are, I think that person in those circumstances should become bankrupt!

If someone is living a lifestyle which means they are doing the financial equiviolent of treading water, I really don't think its the tax payers job to provide them with luxury.

well that's an option, but is it a good one?

i mean we, not through choice, bailed out the banks as them going bust would have wrecked the country

so on the same note, there is enough personal bankruptcys as it is, with the real losers being those owed money, so do we really want to spread more financial pain around?

one minute someone may have a job, and the next minute they don't. they could be unemployed and struggling for a few days, weeks, months, years, but as soon as they get a job they can start repaying the debts again. so jimbob could lose his job on friday, end up on the dole and struggling on monday, can't pay his bills, but a month later he has a job and can get back to normal. he just needs a months help. i suppose geniune bankruptcy takes a bit of time to go through, but forcing normal people who paid bills and had a full time decent paying job to go through bankruptcy when others are living a comfortable lifestyle on the dole without doing a days work in years, is perhaps a situation that most voting taxpayers wouldn't accept, and in fact the very situation that most would want to support

[Lucio]

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised about all the furore over the scheme, quite frankly if I were unemployed, I'd be grateful for something useful to do in a day and a chance to prove that I'm worth something. As far as I can see it, it's a scheme intended to let people help themselves out of bad circumstances.

Sure, the "big companies" win by having members of staff paid for by the government, but the participants can also win by proving that they're worth hiring, even for jobs that they're "over-qualified" for.

My only concern with the scheme is the idea that you *have* to take part, and even that I'm sketchy on the details of what is and isn't mandatory.

[BobF64]

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised about all the furore over the scheme, quite frankly if I were unemployed, I'd be grateful for something useful to do in a day and a chance to prove that I'm worth something. As far as I can see it, it's a scheme intended to let people help themselves out of bad circumstances.

But the thing is, its not aimed at the unemployed in general, which is how its being portrayed, its aimed at those 16-24.

So, basically school and university leavers, ie those who probably have little or no job experience.

Of course, if people outside this bracket are being sent, then its purely the usual bureaucratic uselessness, for which Job Centres should cleared out, top to bottom, and their own jobs offered to the public.

[TheAnimus]

What are you talking about? I said welfare staves off starvation, meaning £0/w = a lot of sick or dead people, not £67.50. The point being that there's no correlation between welfare and employment beyond having it means unemployed *don't* starve.

My bad I read it as they would be starving and thus costing the state compared to the irish version, that isn't what you'd written. Joys of dislexia and speed reading....

one minute someone may have a job, and the next minute they don't. they could be unemployed and struggling for a few days, weeks, months, years, but as soon as they get a job they can start repaying the debts again. so jimbob could lose his job on friday, end up on the dole and struggling on monday, can't pay his bills, but a month later he has a job and can get back to normal. he just needs a months help. i suppose geniune bankruptcy takes a bit of time to go through, but forcing normal people who paid bills and had a full time decent paying job to go through bankruptcy when others are living a comfortable lifestyle on the dole without doing a days work in years, is perhaps a situation that most voting taxpayers wouldn't accept, and in fact the very situation that most would want to support

Firstly I'd have loved to have been able to let the banks fail. Sadly they are now too big to fail, and there are few good ideas on how to break them up. (if there were we would see it from some political commentators, myself I'd love to limit the liability of any entity to 500M say, from then on it has to be seperate firewalled company, they would have to be open to competition for internal services etc..... not remotely pratical thou)

I agree about the person who has lost their job, failed to get one in say 6 months, their savings all gone getting a much harder time than someone who just exploits the benefit system! I think more mortgage companies should be selling forms of PPI that weren't utter horse ****. If I paid a 15% premium on my mortgage knowing that I could be un-employed I doubt I'd mind. I already pay a 0.25% annual premium on perminant health insurance, which would pay about 1/3rd of my annual incomes if I became unable to work (fell off my bicycle, unable to touch type say).

I guess thou thats because I believe the government should be a last ditch safety net. You want bigger titties, you pay, you've got cancer we pay, you're on the street, we home you, you can't afford your mortgage payments, well, you should have had the insurance.......

The problem is too many people are led strangely in how they action their monies, with housing accounting for so much of it (and we simply just don't have enough in London). What grinds my gears is all the squandering of money we've had over the last 15 years, and none of it has been on longer term yeilding projects, such as transport infrastructure.

Myself I would have a rule about planning permissions and the like that a certain amount have to be granted when 2 bed flat prices are more than 7 times average wage for that postcode say, but then how on earth would certain boroughs of London manage, they just don't have the space.....

I guess thats the reason I'm not a politician, I've a pratical knowledge of economics and as such know how little solutions I truely have

[aidanjt]

My bad I read it as they would be starving and thus costing the state compared to the irish version, that isn't what you'd written. Joys of dislexia and speed reading....

No harm done.

[Saracen]

....

My only concern with the scheme is the idea that you *have* to take part, and even that I'm sketchy on the details of what is and isn't mandatory.

With the scheme that's been in the news, there is no compulsion to take part. Or at least, the scheme itself has no compulsion. If individual advisers have been saying it's mandatory, then that's a problem with those advisers and they either need to be better-trained, or if they still don't get it, fired, and give the job to somebody that will do it right.

It goes like this :-

- you need to be young to qualify
- you need to demonstrate willingness to work at it to be put forward
- you volunteer
- after you start, you have one week (on a program from 2 to 8 weeks in length) to withdraw without sanction
- after that first week, if you quit, then sanctions are discretionary.

That last bit is to say that if you just quit, or fail to show up, with no good reason, then a sanction might be applied. Not that it will, but that it might be.

All the above relates specifically to the work experience scheme. Other elements of the programs to get people back to work might not be voluntary .... such as the "Work for Your Benefit" scheme. That was mandatory, and for up to 6 months. And it was introduced by Labour. By Yvette Cooper, to be specific, in July 2009. The pilots were supposed to start in October 2010, and run for two years.

[aidanjt]

Officially the sanctions may be discretionary, in practice, sanctions are all applied with great enthusiasm.

[jetfire]

saint Emma is no longer a director of a4e so why would you do that if there was nothing wrong with how the company works.

TM01 27/02/2012 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR EMMA HARRISON

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/b8...prodorder?ft=1

and she is going to sue all in her way as well

http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.c...s-in-a4es-way/

[jetfire]

looks like a4e has sprung a leak

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B44V...Idw/edit?pli=1

[Saracen]

Officially the sanctions may be discretionary, in practice, sanctions are all applied with great enthusiasm.

Evidence?

According to the government, out of 34200 taking part from January to end November last year, 220 had been sanctioned, and those were mostly for misconduct, not for just quitting.