41 replies to this topic

[markaboot]

after uni i didnt find it difficult finding work. i'd worked on building sites and for a painter and decorator . but after uni i wanted a decent paid job not a min wage job. id also been messed around alot in both theses jobs. i was finding it difficult to find work in jobs related to me degree. so went to the job center and ended up on the dole.

the main problem is the system is way to easy to scam. my proof id been looking for work was done 5 mins before walking into the job center.
my mate is a prime example of this after being on the dole for some time, he then got incapacity benefits which is a whole lot more, then he claimed he was homeless and got a flat for free. its way too easy to scam it, part of the problem is that the people working there dont care.

[mrslaphead]

The problem is that if you qualify (or know what to claim for) you can earn more money on benefits than if you had a job.
One of my former bosses wife is high up in the benefits agency and a few years ago the home secretary visited and asked why so many people
were on benefits and how could they reduce it. she replied that it was because it paid too ell and reeled off 4 or 5 ways to easily claim upwards of £30k
for a family of 4. If we give them £30k for doing nothing then they would be looking for a lot more than that to be motivated to actually do a bit.

I apologise if anyone legitimately claiming benefit feels I am implying they are greedy/lazy I am merely trying to show how easy we make it for
people to never work. I understand that some people truly cannot work and we should support them but unfortunately they get lost by the thousands
who abuse the system.

I totally agree that there should be a way of people to pay back to society the benefits they receive, whether its sorting out recycling, painting schools
or whatever.

[Ethel]

Although I like being contrary just for the hell of it, I do genuinely think this is a bad idea.

Yet again those at the bottom of the heap will be the whipping boys to distract from the cockups of money grabbing fat cats and incompetent government.

How much will it cost to set up the bureaucracy and employ an army of snoopers to enforce this? Another fortune looks set to be paid to private companies who will offer the pointless training courses that I imagine the majority will opt for to avoid being forced in to badly paid and unsuitable jobs. Jobs, no doubt, that they will leave at the first opportunity.

If they put the effort in to providing jobs that paid enough to be a more attractive than a life on benefits and removed some of the legislation that penalises claimants when they do attempt to better themselves they wouldn't need strong arm tactics.

But then, who would they be able to divert the public's venom to?

What about those people who already have proper jobs painting schools and sorting rubbish?
Though I do agree it could be done cheaper if we removed the layer of bureaucracy and parasites that competitive tendering created.

[landy andy]

Although I like being contrary just for the hell of it, I do genuinely think this is a bad idea.

Yet again those at the bottom of the heap will be the whipping boys to distract from the cockups of money grabbing fat cats and incompetent government.

How much will it cost to set up the bureaucracy and employ an army of snoopers to enforce this? Another fortune looks set to be paid to private companies who will offer the pointless training courses that I imagine the majority will opt for to avoid being forced in to badly paid and unsuitable jobs. Jobs, no doubt, that they will leave at the first opportunity.

If they put the effort in to providing jobs that paid enough to be a more attractive than a life on benefits and removed some of the legislation that penalises claimants when they do attempt to better themselves they wouldn't need strong arm tactics.

But then, who would they be able to divert the public's venom to?

What about those people who already have proper jobs painting schools and sorting rubbish?
Though I do agree it could be done cheaper if we removed the layer of bureaucracy and parasites that competitive tendering created.

I actualy "kinda" agree with what you say. Sometimes the concept of competitive tendering is what actualy fuels an economy. Not that I agree with it 100% but as much as we may or may not like it..we do live in a capitalist society.
I can see your point about the venom being shot at the current poster people for "evil". This week it happens to be the lazy and over fertile lazy that are the targets...don't forget there is an election on the way and happens to be preceded by the worst economic downturn ever witnesed by most.
You have to admit..in the current climate when hard working people are losing their jobs through no fault of their own and they see people like Shannon Mathews mum out there it is a bitter pill to swollow. As much as it sucks..there are an awful lot of people out there just like her.They are not the majority but they certainly sit in a high percentage of our population.
In my home state of Washington (not the scummy capitol,the beautiful state!) you have 6 months to live on benifits then if you have not found a job they will put you to work with one of their agreed Buisines partners. So you would end up working at Burger king untill you paid back your money given to you by the state and then you can stay on if you like at burger king or find another job.You cant quit because if you do there are severe penalties like going to jail.Also you can not claim again for another 2 years. It works. Not sure if things have changed since the downturn of the economy and now most of my state is unemployed!!??

Edited by landy andy, 11 December 2008 - 01:07 PM.

[*Raz*]

Oh I really have started something

[998dave]

I like the idea of having them sort recycling, could also set them all up on tread mills to generate electricity? (joke - please)...

Sounds like the Americans have this one right though, 6 months to find a job, then you get given one, and if you don't like it tough, seems to me we should do this here.

Although I understand being a full-time parent is important and would like to point out if someone takes the choice to stay at home to look after their children until they go to school then that should be allowed, as long as they're not abusing the system.

D

[Ethel]

Although I like being contrary just for the hell of it, I do genuinely think this is a bad idea.

Yet again those at the bottom of the heap will be the whipping boys to distract from the cockups of money grabbing fat cats and incompetent government.

How much will it cost to set up the bureaucracy and employ an army of snoopers to enforce this? Another fortune looks set to be paid to private companies who will offer the pointless training courses that I imagine the majority will opt for to avoid being forced in to badly paid and unsuitable jobs. Jobs, no doubt, that they will leave at the first opportunity.

If they put the effort in to providing jobs that paid enough to be a more attractive than a life on benefits and removed some of the legislation that penalises claimants when they do attempt to better themselves they wouldn't need strong arm tactics.

But then, who would they be able to divert the public's venom to?

What about those people who already have proper jobs painting schools and sorting rubbish?
Though I do agree it could be done cheaper if we removed the layer of bureaucracy and parasites that competitive tendering created.

I actualy "kinda" agree with what you say. Sometimes the concept of competitive tendering is what actualy fuels an economy. Not that I agree with it 100% but as much as we may or may not like it..we do live in a capitalist society.
I can see your point about the venom being shot at the current poster people for "evil". This week it happens to be the lazy and over fertile lazy that are the targets...don't forget there is an election on the way and happens to be preceded by the worst economic downturn ever witnesed by most.
You have to admit..in the current climate when hard working people are losing their jobs through no fault of their own and they see people like Shannon Mathews mum out there it is a bitter pill to swollow. As much as it sucks..there are an awful lot of people out there just like her.They are not the majority but they certainly sit in a high percentage of our population.
In my home state of Washington (not the scummy capitol,the beautiful state!) you have 6 months to live on benifits then if you have not found a job they will put you to work with one of their agreed Buisines partners. So you would end up working at Burger king untill you paid back your money given to you by the state and then you can stay on if you like at burger king or find another job.You cant quit because if you do there are severe penalties like going to jail.Also you can not claim again for another 2 years. It works. Not sure if things have changed since the downturn of the economy and now most of my state is unemployed!!??

Forcing someone to work amounts to slavery doesn't it
Sadly, I think this country is getting too close to the American model, there's something instinctively unsavoury about mixing private companies run for profit with state welfare policy and the law.

Competitive tendering sounds like a good idea but from experience it just adds to the bureaucracy when applied to services: the same people are at the bottom doing the same job only you add a layer of private management who are there to make a profit and you still have in house management checking up on them to make sure the job is being done properly. Any savings are usually at the expense of the poor bloody workers. I agree capital expenditure (new schools, military kit etc) should go to the best bidder though.

Also also agree we could do more about recycling and sorting out the state of our public areas, but we should pay a proper wage and have respect for those that do the work. The lack of respect is a large part of the problem, too many people think it is beneath them to clear up their own mess: making it the compulsory responsibility of a poorly paid underclass won't address that.

Am I being cynical in thinking they saved this one up for after the Karen Matthews verdict?

You could argue that it's a sad indictment on society that such a scheme was the best way she could think of for bettering her lot. I do actually think her actions are indefencable, but there are plenty of others in a similar situation who aren't presented with any better option than claiming benefits; working cash in hand, for less than the minimum wage and with no employment rights, to line someone else's pocket, and spending any spare cash they have of booze, fags and scratch cards.

[Jammy]

Ok, lets take Karen Matthews as an example. I don't see why, with her kids at school she couldn't find a part time job at least to bring money in, then and only then she could claim benefits to 'top up' her wages. She could save the money she spends on fags and booze and use it to gain qualifications to enable herself to get a better job which in turn gives her family a better life and her kids better aspirations.

[Mini_the_Minx]

Ok, lets take Karen Matthews as an example. I don't see why, with her kids at school she couldn't find a part time job at least to bring money in, then and only then she could claim benefits to 'top up' her wages. She could save the money she spends on fags and booze and use it to gain qualifications to enable herself to get a better job which in turn gives her family a better life and her kids better aspirations.

Not everybody thinks like that though Jammy. In their eyes, its easier for somebody else to pay their way.

I can kinda see the logic though, why work when you can get everything for free? Of course most of us have morals and want more than just a dingy flat full of kids with different dads but for some, its all to easy to sit on their hind and let every other fool work so they don't have to!

I pay my tax just as the rest of us do, but I don't expect it to go toward paying for somebody elses drug habit or so somebody can have an easy a*sed life sat on their backside doing nothing whilst their kids are out mugging my nan or breaking into my car. Its made too easy and soon te next generation are going to realise this. I would be interested to see this come into force but I won't be holding my breath!

[998dave]

Forcing someone to work amounts to slavery doesn't it

If you don't pay them yes.
Taking money from people dishonestly counts as stealing doesn't it?

And on a less serious note...

...which in turn gives her family a better life and her kids better aspirins.

To deal with the headaches?

[998dave]

I can kinda see the logic though, why work when you can get everything for free? Of course most of us have morals and want more than just a dingy flat full of kids with different dads but for some, its all to easy to sit on their hind and let every other fool work so they don't have to!

This reminded me of when I was speaking to an Essex girl once and asked what her kids name's were.

"What are your kids names?", I asked,
"Gary", she replied.

"What all of them?" I enquired,
"Yes", she replied. "Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary and Gary", (she had ten boys).

"So what do you say if you want them up for school?" I asked,
"I say, Gary get up for school", she explained, "and they come for breakfast".

"So what do you say if you want them in for dinner?" I asked,
"I say, Gary come in for dinner", she explained, "and they all come running".

"So what do you say if you want them to go to bed?" I asked,
"I say, Gary go to bed", she explained, "and they all go to their rooms".

"Okay, what if you only want one of them to do something?" I asked,
"Ah, then it's more difficult", she said, "then I have to remember their surnames..."

[Jammy]

...which in turn gives her family a better life and her kids better aspirins.

To deal with the headaches?

Git! I had to double check my post then!

[Ethel]

Ok, lets take Karen Matthews as an example. I don't see why, with her kids at school she couldn't find a part time job at least to bring money in, then and only then she could claim benefits to 'top up' her wages. She could save the money she spends on fags and booze and use it to gain qualifications to enable herself to get a better job which in turn gives her family a better life and her kids better aspirations.

Taking someone with similar circumstances as KM as an example. She'd need a job that fits in with her parental responsibilities (assuming drugging them up to the eyeballs and hiding them in a divan base isn't to be condoned), so we need an employer who will let her work from say 9.30 - 3.00 during term times only and will tolerate her not coming in at short notice if one of her many offspring are too ill to for skool. If that employer pays her the minimum wage she'll get £5.73/hour and that will be reduced by at least 65% in reductions to her benefits that gives her £2.00/hour from which she will have to pay her travel costs to get to work and any other expenses. Ten hours a week would get her working tax credit that could be worth a few grand a year but she'd lose that in benefit reductions too and even if she didn't it wouldn't be worth her while saving more than 6K to help fund her, or her kid's education as the DHSS would take that off her too. Compared to making £2/hr to still be trapped on the same sink estate I can imagine hatching a plan to get the same attention and tabloid payouts as the McCanns might be tempting.

[landy andy]

Although I like being contrary just for the hell of it, I do genuinely think this is a bad idea.

Yet again those at the bottom of the heap will be the whipping boys to distract from the cockups of money grabbing fat cats and incompetent government.

How much will it cost to set up the bureaucracy and employ an army of snoopers to enforce this? Another fortune looks set to be paid to private companies who will offer the pointless training courses that I imagine the majority will opt for to avoid being forced in to badly paid and unsuitable jobs. Jobs, no doubt, that they will leave at the first opportunity.

If they put the effort in to providing jobs that paid enough to be a more attractive than a life on benefits and removed some of the legislation that penalises claimants when they do attempt to better themselves they wouldn't need strong arm tactics.

But then, who would they be able to divert the public's venom to?

What about those people who already have proper jobs painting schools and sorting rubbish?
Though I do agree it could be done cheaper if we removed the layer of bureaucracy and parasites that competitive tendering created.

I actualy "kinda" agree with what you say. Sometimes the concept of competitive tendering is what actualy fuels an economy. Not that I agree with it 100% but as much as we may or may not like it..we do live in a capitalist society.
I can see your point about the venom being shot at the current poster people for "evil". This week it happens to be the lazy and over fertile lazy that are the targets...don't forget there is an election on the way and happens to be preceded by the worst economic downturn ever witnesed by most.
You have to admit..in the current climate when hard working people are losing their jobs through no fault of their own and they see people like Shannon Mathews mum out there it is a bitter pill to swollow. As much as it sucks..there are an awful lot of people out there just like her.They are not the majority but they certainly sit in a high percentage of our population.
In my home state of Washington (not the scummy capitol,the beautiful state!) you have 6 months to live on benifits then if you have not found a job they will put you to work with one of their agreed Buisines partners. So you would end up working at Burger king untill you paid back your money given to you by the state and then you can stay on if you like at burger king or find another job.You cant quit because if you do there are severe penalties like going to jail.Also you can not claim again for another 2 years. It works. Not sure if things have changed since the downturn of the economy and now most of my state is unemployed!!??

Forcing someone to work amounts to slavery doesn't it
Sadly, I think this country is getting too close to the American model, there's something instinctively unsavoury about mixing private companies run for profit with state welfare policy and the law.

Competitive tendering sounds like a good idea but from experience it just adds to the bureaucracy when applied to services: the same people are at the bottom doing the same job only you add a layer of private management who are there to make a profit and you still have in house management checking up on them to make sure the job is being done properly. Any savings are usually at the expense of the poor bloody workers. I agree capital expenditure (new schools, military kit etc) should go to the best bidder though.

Also also agree we could do more about recycling and sorting out the state of our public areas, but we should pay a proper wage and have respect for those that do the work. The lack of respect is a large part of the problem, too many people think it is beneath them to clear up their own mess: making it the compulsory responsibility of a poorly paid underclass won't address that.

Am I being cynical in thinking they saved this one up for after the Karen Matthews verdict?

You could argue that it's a sad indictment on society that such a scheme was the best way she could think of for bettering her lot. I do actually think her actions are indefencable, but there are plenty of others in a similar situation who aren't presented with any better option than claiming benefits; working cash in hand, for less than the minimum wage and with no employment rights, to line someone else's pocket, and spending any spare cash they have of booze, fags and scratch cards.

The companies dont realy benifit that much. They get a person into employment,dont tax them untill they have paid back the money owed to the taxpayer and hopefuly give them some pride in themselves despite it being burger king. At least they are paying back the tax payer. Thats something.

[landy andy]

O.K not a mature response but....can anyone say gigantic wood chipper? Feed em' in!