Court ruling against government back to work scheme.

[dizzyblonde]

Here's an interesting one. Whereas I agree folk who unfortunately lose a job, shouldn't rest on their laurels and get back out to seek new employment, nor do I agree with lazy people refusing work. I don't agree with refusal of benefit because you don't want to work for free and look for work at the same time, just to.please the government figures.


http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=298

[tonyk]

I'm looking for a job for the past 20 years !!! how dare they make me do any sort of work for my benefits.
i'm still looking ...............
Amazing that it does not give any time to do any voluntary work, which i enjoy.....
But in the meantime the rest of you go to work and pay tax's, the harder you work, the more tax you pay....lol.

[Spank86]

Hang on if its refusal of benefit because you dont want to work for free then you're not working for free are you. You're working for your benefit.

Perhaps I should sue my company for slavery since If I don't do a months work for free they don't give me any money at the end of the month!

[dizzyblonde]

I think the time would be better suited finding a decent job, than doing whatever this scheme has to offer,it would seem.

I found it an interesting read, it was on the news at lunchtime but I didn't catch it in time.

[Spank86]

Finding a job is hardly a full time activity.

Especially if you've been off work for 6 months or more. Gonna update your CV that you've mastered the ability to squeese an extra 2 pints of special brew from your dole money.

[Biker Biggles]

The trouble with this policy is that it must fall foul of the minimum wage legislation if they try to force people to work for benefit money.If they found them proper jobs,then removed their benefits if they refused to take the job,that would be more logical.

[tonyk]

I believe in, "you work you get benefits, if you can’t be bothered to get off your ass then you should get NOTHING."
There must come a time when we just cannot carry on giving out handout for ever. for people who just dont want to work.


Right. light's paper and runs.

[Biker Biggles]

I believe in, "you work you get benefits, if you can’t be bothered to get off your ass then you should get NOTHING."
There must come a time when we just cannot carry on giving out handout for ever. for people who just dont want to work.


Right. light's paper and runs.
Thats kind of what I said,but if you work you should get a wage like anyone else who works.Benefits should be for those who cant work.But that would have to include those for whom there is no work,something which may be problematic in the current economic climate.

[dizzyblonde]

Precisely what I thought BB.


This isn't about benefit scrounging. This is about exploiting the jobless. There's a lot of jobless looking for employment. This scheme just really takes the pee out of folk already falling on bad times trying desperately to find a way out of it.

[keith_d]

I believe in, "you work you get benefits, if you can’t be bothered to get off your ass then you should get NOTHING."
There must come a time when we just cannot carry on giving out handout for ever. for people who just dont want to work.

Right. light's paper and runs.

There's a big difference between 'safety net' and 'security blanket'.

I'm thinking that benefits should cover rent, utility bills, council tax and basic food. No 42" colour TV's, no foreign holidays, and no flashy cars. It should be a safety net to ensure we don't have people starving, or dying in shop doorways in the winter, not a way of living comfortably at other people's expense.

I guess that makes me some kind of victorian throwback.

[tonyk]

:puker:Kieth in an ideal world yes. But if you're going to pay for
rent, utility bills, council tax and basic food, then what's the point in going to work then?.
Do a part time cash in hand and everything else is paid for by the state...
.state ha lmao "US" more like it...

[dizzyblonde]

This article was not posted as yet another benefits bashing thread.

Anybody can lose their job and fall on bad times. Sure if you are determined enough, you can be fortunate, but what about those who aren't so lucky. Especially as the Current climate makes it all the more difficult.

Twice last year Peg lost his job. The first time it took three months to get back into something suitable for our circumstances. It took a month last time. It's a living hell, when you nearly find yourself eating baked beans for Xmas dinner.

People in ivory towers are sometimes quite blind. A bit like Dave at No10.

[yorkie_chris]

There's a big difference between 'safety net' and 'security blanket'.

I'm thinking that benefits should cover rent, utility bills, council tax and basic food. No 42" colour TV's, no foreign holidays, and no flashy cars. It should be a safety net to ensure we don't have people starving, or dying in shop doorways in the winter, not a way of living comfortably at other people's expense.

I guess that makes me some kind of victorian throwback.

My brothers scenario up until recently.

Just above minimum wage, 40hr week. After rent, bills, tax, food... about £50 a week disposable income.

He would have been "better off" on benefits except for overtime, and pride.

I think there was some other kick in the nuts that you were stuck paying full rate council tax if under 21 also... no single occupancy discount or whatever it is.

[dizzyblonde]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mobileweb/2013/02/12/poundland-free-labour-wor_n_2667671.html

A little more detail from those who took the government to court. I don't think their arguments were wrong at all. The young lady gave a balanced speech to the media at lunchtime imo.

[garynortheast]

I'm glad they won this case. I sincerely hope someone rams the whole scheme up
Ca-morons @rse and follows it up with the sharp end of a pineapple. He's a 2hat.

[Spank86]

It's a living hell, when you nearly find yourself eating baked beans for Xmas dinner.
Sounds a lot like my first job.

Only I had parents to fall back on for christmas at least even if most other meals involved beans or sphagettios.

[EssexDave]

I'm glad they won this case. I sincerely hope someone rams the whole scheme up
Ca-morons @rse and follows it up with the sharp end of a pineapple. He's a 2hat.


It was Iain Duncan Smith that created the scheme and essentially acted outside the powers he had.

The government (through the proper processes) could well introduce this in legislation and then it would be fine and no court could do anything about it.

And in any case, if you're fit to work, you SHOULD have to provide something for your benefit, as long as any expenses incurred (e.g. travel) are paid for by whoever you're working for, what's the problem.

You gain experience, and you also show that you can pull your weight and do what you need to do to hold down a job.

What they shouldn't do, is provide this to businesses for free (as you could argue this would reduce the amount of jobs available) but for sure there's no problems with some kind of community service on a part time basis.

[dizzyblonde]

What they shouldn't do, is provide this to businesses for free (as you could argue this would reduce the amount of jobs available) but for sure there's no problems with some kind of community service on a part time basis.


Which is what seems to have happened in the case of the girl. Not so sure about the other fella. Moving a jobseekers off through a scheme to suit statistics, providing poundland with cheap/free labour. Only benefits two parties, and its certainly not the jobseekers.

[EssexDave]

They stay on jobseekers - they just don't receive it if they don't work for free. (Is my understanding of the scheme)

[Sid Squid]

It wasn't for nothing, it was for the money she receives each week - your money, my money.

And it's self defeating on her part too - when the time comes that the job she feels entitled to wait for is available, it will look even worse on her CV that she's been aggressively unemployed for a longer period.

Not to mention the fact that her self seeking grab for a litigious solution makes her exactly the sort of person that many wouldn't want to employ. I sincerely hope it comes back to bite her on the bum. This is a bad judgement, a nod to the unemployable to cement their position of much rights and no responsibilities, not to mention painfully selfish.

[Spank86]

Although it is a bit of a joke the government paying for someone to work in poundland.

Is that really the sort of place we should be putting help into?

[Sid Squid]

Although it is a bit of a joke the government paying for someone to work in poundland.

Is that really the sort of place we should be putting help into?
I couldn't agree more - I'd have long term benefit claimants sweeping streets and other such civic services, but it hardly matters if it's Poundland or Harrods - it's a job, a little something for the money taken.

[Spank86]

But if pound land need staff they should be advertising and they can pay her to work.

Why should We pay her wages on top of the price of whatever tat we buy there?

[TamSV]

But if pound land need staff they should be advertising and they can pay her to work.

Why should We pay her wages on top of the price of whatever tat we buy there?

I agree with you but that doesn't seem to have been her objection to the scheme.

Her problem seems to be;
She's a bit too busy for that sort of thing.
She won't work for free (in this example "working for free" excludes any actual money you're getting)

[Spank86]

Which is the bit where I disagree with her.

I think it's probably quite a half baked scheme but if implemented well and sensibly would be a good thing.

People need to learn that when you're unemployed there's no such thing as a job that's 'beneath you'.

[Thunderace]

People need to learn that when you're unemployed there's no such thing as a job that's 'beneath you'.

Well said Ad!=D>=D>=D>=D>=D>=D>

[Sid Squid]

Why should We pay her wages on top of the price of whatever tat we buy there?
We're paying her anyway whether she does something or nothing, I don't see it's so bad that someone gets a little work out of her, that being accepted I'm not going to get fussy over who that is.

As said before, I'd have the long term unemployed do some or other civic service, that way we'd all of us get a little from it.

[Spank86]

We would be yes but pound land is a business that should be fairly competing against other businesses in the high street not being unfairly subsidised, they either need and can afford the member of staff or they don't need her or they need to work out a way to afford her.


In my opinion anyway.

[dizzyblonde]

So, what about the 40 yr old HGV driver who also won his case today?


Either way, there was some serious flaws in this scheme from the DWP, who tonight have so much egg on their faces, they are furiously trying to rewrite things in their favour.
Yet another stupid gaff, brought to you by Dave and co.

[Spank86]

To be fair the court found that the rules were okay in theory but needed to be made more specific.

[dizzyblonde]

We would be yes but pound land is a business that should be fairly competing against other businesses in the high street not being unfairly subsidised, they either need and can afford the member of staff or they don't need her or they need to work out a way to afford her.


In my opinion anyway.

You don't have a service provided to you and only expect to pay pennies, so why should such a large company expect to have somebody there doing a job for them for pennies, when somebody alongside them is being payed a proper wage for the exact same job.
She wasn't there because she was doing community service for committing a crime, so why be left to feel like its some sort of punishment for being jobless?

[Spank86]

Thanks for the agreement.


I do still think that the idea of asking job seekers to undertake some sort of voluntary work is a good one though, it just needs refining.

[garynortheast]

a). She was already doing voluntary work, of a type that would benefit people (at least, those who are willing to entertain the idea of expanding their knowledge a little) far more than working in a shop selling cheap sh!t.
b). She is also now working paid, part time in a supermarket. She said publicly that she doesn't regard working there as being beneath her.
So perhaps one or two people here could stop being so ****ing self righteous.

By the way, that wasn't necessarily aimed at you, Spank.

[Sid Squid]

a). She was already doing voluntary work, of a type that would benefit people (at least, those who are willing to entertain the idea of expanding their knowledge a little) far more than working in a shop selling cheap sh!t.
Oh I see, you are of course so right when so many are all wrong, she worked voluntarily in a museum, that's all right then, as long as she gets to spend her time the way she likes - no, not all at a problem - we'll pick up the tab.
b). She is also now working paid, part time in a supermarket.
Which only serves to make her refusal of two weeks requested of her ever harder to understand.
She said publicly that she doesn't regard working there as being beneath her.
And this I'm quite sure, when no one suggested it was beneath her, you'll explain the relevance of. As far as I'm aware she hadn't been accused of feeling it was - her assertion was an irrelevance, an attempt to divert criticism for the harder of thinking to latch on to.
So perhaps one or two people here could stop being so ****ing self righteous.
By the way, that wasn't necessarily aimed at you, Spank.
We'll deal with these two pieces of daftness at once shall we? It's painfully clear at whom you aim your feeble attempts at criticism, I sincerely doubt that anyone is in doubt about that. Which brings me to accusations of self righteousness:
I'm glad they won this case. I sincerely hope someone rams the whole scheme up
Ca-morons @rse and follows it up with the sharp end of a pineapple. He's a 2hat.
Anyone who's nailed their colours so firmly but ridiculously to the mast with a diatribe such as yours is in a poor position to critcise anyone else.

You were saying?

[Sir Trev]

We would be yes but pound land is a business that should be fairly competing against other businesses in the high street not being unfairly subsidised, they either need and can afford the member of staff or they don't need her or they need to work out a way to afford her.


In my opinion anyway.


The subsidising of Poundland is something I also object to. Having jobseekers do something useful is in principle sound (within sensible limits) but if we the tax payers are helping the jobseekers with benefits then we the tax payers should get the direct benefit of their labour if they are required to do this sort of thing. Working for their local authority would potentially improve services for taxpayers and/or reduce council taxes. As long as the jobseeker is able to continue to look for work unhindered, gains a real world advangate from it and as long as they are not treated as though they are on Community Service punishment.

[yorkie_chris]

Send them to work in the banks :)

[ClunkintheUK]

I completely see the logic of asking long-term un-employed to do some work for their benefits. But why should they be asked to do work for private contractors, who would otherwise pay for the work to be done? The overall effect of this is the taxpayer giving money to the share-holders and managers of these contractors. If they have work that needs doing, then they should pay for that. IF they can't pay an amount to get someone to do it voluntarily then the work is not economically viable.

Doing volunteer work at a museum is an excellent idea.

A.) you prove that you can show up on time/fulfill the basic requirements of any job.
B.) show that you have good people skills
c.) It benefits society at large (many national museums are free entry)
D.) Larger museums can ALWAYS use more help, from helping keep the place tidy to being able to talk to visitors about the exhibits, or to point out where the toilets are.
E.) More volunteers does not mean fewer paid jobs. The basic running of the museum (security, ticketing, finances etc) are all done by paid for jobs, and there will be the same requirements regardless of how many volunteers are working at the museum.

If she was doing the museum work to the exclusion of job-seeking, then yes it would be a problem, but forcing someone to do essentially slave labor for a private company without giving them the chance to prove they are doing something that is helping society at large is plain wrong. And yes it is slave labor, as the party benefiting from the work is not the party paying for the work.

[ClunkintheUK]

The subsidising of Poundland is something I also object to. Having jobseekers do something useful is in principle sound (within sensible limits) but if we the tax payers are helping the jobseekers with benefits then we the tax payers should get the direct benefit of their labour if they are required to do this sort of thing. Working for their local authority would potentially improve services for taxpayers and/or reduce council taxes. As long as the jobseeker is able to continue to look for work unhindered, gains a real world advangate from it and as long as they are not treated as though they are on Community Service punishment.

What he said. (far more elegantly than my diatribe)

[Spank86]

I think you both covered the points i was trying to make.

It's quite ironic that they stopped her volunteering in a museum to make her do it in poundland. I can see the logic that the museum stuff is never going to lead to a job but I thought cameron was all for the BIG SOCIETY and besides I doubt she graduated from uni to volunteer in a museum for the rest of her life.

[dizzyblonde]

We as tax payers helping with payment of benefit......


........hang on a mo. Example 40 yr old truck driver been paying his taxes whilst working for 20yrs and loses his job, ends up being long term, longer than he expected


........he's paid his taxes towards his benefit......

[Spank86]

Well in that case perhaps those of us who don't claim for jobseekers (hopefully I'll stay in that camp) should get a bonus upon hitting retirement age to even everything up.

[ClunkintheUK]

Also how does this scheme effect people who are training. If you've lost your job in an industry that is in decline, would you have to take a "job" in poundland to the exclusion of a training course that would give you the skills needed for an industry on the up. (or are there other benefits and schemes for this).

[dizzyblonde]

Well in that case perhaps those of us who don't claim for jobseekers (hopefully I'll stay in that camp) should get a bonus upon hitting retirement age to even everything up.


You pay your tax, and the safety net is there if you hit unfortunate circumstance.
You pay insurance on your car, and the safety net is there if you hit unfortunate circumstance.

You don't get a refund of insurance if you never claim. I'd be rich if that happened :rolleyes:
There is however what they call a state pension. Pittance as much as jobseekers allowance

[TamSV]

If you claim on your car insurance, your future contributions to the pot will generally increase. It's not an entirely free ride.


If there's any good reason for paying tax then it's to live in an ordered society. You're not really supposed to get it back.

I'm happy that we live in a society where bad luck doesn't lead to starvation but there's no reason the safety net shouldn't come with other obligations.

I also don't think the pound shop are necessarily the exploitative capitalist running dogs they're being made out to be. What they're offering is work experience. Having people in your business who don't want to be there is no joke - more hindrance than benefit. In agreeing to do it they quite possibly saw it as altruism. Putting something back.

[widepants]

There's a big difference between 'safety net' and 'security blanket'.

I'm thinking that benefits should cover rent, utility bills, council tax and basic food. No 42" colour TV's, no foreign holidays, and no flashy cars. .

.

where the chuff do you get the above from.I dont work because Im a full time carer , but the gov thinks I need £71.00 a week to live on.Because I get £50 a week cares allowance they take that from income support and give me £21.00.
Please direct me to the magic shop where I get get all my goodies

[yorkie_chris]

I think he's probably using the usual slip of terminology of describing jobseekers as benefits.

[TamSV]

Living on benefits isn't a route to riches. If someone is existing on benefits and also have a big TV, foreign holidays and a flashy car, then I suspect something else is going on. You can't do that honestly.

[ClunkintheUK]

I also don't think the pound shop are necessarily the exploitative capitalist running dogs they're being made out to be. What they're offering is work experience. Having people in your business who don't want to be there is no joke - more hindrance than benefit. In agreeing to do it they quite possibly saw it as altruism. Putting something back.

I see your point about people who don;t want to be there being a problem. This is another problem with the scheme.

Also a truck driver of 20yrs has no work experience.... or in the case of the person asked to work at poundland, working for a super market is not work experience.

Work experience is for people who have not worked before.

My major problem with this is that you have to take the work experience given over other work experience. If you were out of work, and managed to wrangle a month internship at a decent company, where you had genuine prospects of turning it into a contract or permanent position that you wanted, would you have to turn it down in favour of stacking shelves at poundland because you needed the benefits for that month.

I do understand that there might be other societal impacts on this, whereby all bottom of the ladder vacancies would be filled through a couple of months unpaid internship, favouring those with outside means (well-off/supportive parents most likely).

[Spank86]

If you claim on your car insurance, your future contributions to the pot will generally increase. It's not an entirely free ride.
exactly. we all pay in but for everyone that claims we need to put more in.

all of us (eventually)

[TamSV]

I see your point about people who don;t want to be there being a problem. This is another problem with the scheme.

Also a truck driver of 20yrs has no work experience.... or in the case of the person asked to work at poundland, working for a super market is not work experience.

Work experience is for people who have not worked before.

My major problem with this is that you have to take the work experience given over other work experience. If you were out of work, and managed to wrangle a month internship at a decent company, where you had genuine prospects of turning it into a contract or permanent position that you wanted, would you have to turn it down in favour of stacking shelves at poundland because you needed the benefits for that month.

I do understand that there might be other societal impacts on this, whereby all bottom of the ladder vacancies would be filled through a couple of months unpaid internship, favouring those with outside means (well-off/supportive parents most likely).

The details of the scheme are one thing, but this thread seems to be more a debate on the rights or wrongs of the principle rather than the rules of a specific scheme.

As I understand it, this applies to the long-term unemployed. 20 years as a lorry driver is indeed excellent work experience but, for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be helping this chap find another job. What he has been doing isn't working. To say the scheme was preventing him from achieving something he already wasn't achieving is pish. He didn't go on the scheme and still hasn't got a job.

With regards to the Poundland girl, as I read it she got the job in the supermarket after she finished the scheme. The timeline therefore is - long term unemployed - does work experience in a shop - gets job in a shop. Sounds like a roaring success to me. :)

Your point on the internship is a good one, and I would hope the scheme would be flexible enough to accommodate that - but, as availability of internships is largely a matter of who your Dad knows, it probably wouldn't be an issue too often. ;)

[Spank86]

Honestly though if theres no jobs driving then 20 years as a lorry driver is quite limited in terms of useful work experience, at least without a spot of creative CV'ing.

Showing you can turn your hand to many things is always good.

[ClunkintheUK]

Tam, Sure, its a thread about moral of such a scheme, but the devil is in the detail. It can very quickly twist a good idea into something horrible and a very bad idea.

Fully agree with the agenda / purpose of the scheme, which as far as I can see is to help re-train or get work experience for job seekers. By extension those not taking the help are not committed to finding work. Fine if they are not doing anything else beside sending out CV's that indicates that they are not committed (not guarantees though), but it seems there is no provision for people who are taking the initiative. This I do have a moral objection to.

This is also my wider objection to a lot of politics at the moment. Someone has a good idea, undoubtedly good enough to warrant further thought. The general picture of how it works get thrown together and it looks good. They then miss a step and put it into practice, rather then hammer out the details, the what-ifs and moderately exceptional circumstances.

I can see why this happens. If they put it to debate, then the other side automatically shoot it down. either its "Tory toffs who have no idea what real life is like for honest families" or its "Wasteful Laborites who just want to spend more money making complicated schemes". It really does not matter who proposes what, this is always the response it seems. Of course both these statements have a ring of truth to it, which is why there should be proper debate, so that the collective experience of the MP's can be used, rather than just those who hold ministerial posts.
(that might be another topic though)

[garynortheast]

Oh I see, you are of course so right when so many are all wrong, she worked voluntarily in a museum, that's all right then, as long as she gets to spend her time the way she likes - no, not all at a problem - we'll pick up the tab.



So you're telling me then are you that she should only be doing voluntary work that she dislikes, and working voluntarily at something she enjoys doing such as for a museum is not good enough.

Maybe we could put anyone on benefits of any sort into orange jump suits with shackles on their ankles and send them off to clean the toilets in Guantanamo bay. Good enough for you?

[Sid Squid]

Maybe we could put anyone on benefits of any sort into orange jump suits with shackles on their ankles and send them off to clean the toilets in Guantanamo bay. Good enough for you?
Yeah! That's exactly what I was getting at - oh wait. No, no those are definitely YOUR words and a ludicrous fantasy of YOURS that that is what I might possibly think. At no point did I in any way suggest that YOUR bizarre suggestion is what I consider at all suitable.

It's clear you cannot be balanced about this - it's painfully obvious that anything at all out present government does, (and likely, doesn't do), will inspire your distinct umbrage.
Yours is a position inspired by the least of motives - a simple desire to criticise born solely from the fact that the government's political hue is not to your taste.

This is not a discussion that suits your temperament, in that presently objectivity lies as a notion beyond your grasp.

[garynortheast]

The problem here is that you are being as patronising in your assumptions of me as this government (and indeed the last government) were in their dealings with ordinary folk.

Before you go to far in convincing yourself that your view is important enough to make it worth me singling out for attention - it's not. I disagree with the views put forward by several people on this topic, not just yours.

I'll leave those of you who tend towards the daily mail point of view of those in receipt of their unimaginable wealth of benefits to continue this discussion unsullied any further by my filthy expressions of concern for the difficulties of the many people in Britain currently struggling to cope.

[Spank86]

I suppose you'd prefer it if we subscribed to Granma.

[Sid Squid]

The problem here is that you are being as patronising in your assumptions of me
How so? Please explain. You made your position utterly clear, your comments about CallMeDave made that entirely plain.
Before you go to far in convincing yourself that your view is important enough
I have no illusions about whether my thoughts are of interest to anyone, should you read it, and be or not excised about it, is a matter for whoever chooses to read it. I gave my view - if you feel I'm somehow amiss, put me straight, advance an argument. Otherwise your comment is, well, a bit patronising.
I'll leave those of you who tend towards the daily mail point of view
Pot/black, re patronising. x2 I don't habitually read the Daily Mail, any more than I do the other dailys - I like a bit of variety, the Daily Mirror in particular is great for a laugh, (at).
continue this discussion unsullied any further by my filthy expressions of concern for the difficulties of the many people in Britain currently struggling to cope.
And if you truly feel that this court ruling advances the cause of those whose situation concerns you, then my eloquence, (such as it is), is sadly insufficient to express how excruciatingly wrong I feel you are.

[SuzukiNess]

SS - Can I assume you have never had to resort to using the benefit system? You take such a strong stance in vilifying all those that are on benefits, be it as a stop gap or a life choice, and seem to feel they need to be belittled even more by forcing them into slave labour. Gary has an opinion on this, as much as you do, but by ridiculing and resorting to insults, seriously weakens your argument. Is it entirely necessary to resort to belittling Gary, or anyone for that matter, into your way of seeing this argument? How was doing voluntary work at the museum while on benefits differ to cleaning floors in poundland for her benefits? She was in fact still contributing towards the community, not? I cannot see how you can argue that "oh its ok cos she wants to work at the museum but not forced to work at poundland" isn't good enough and should be further forced to partake in free labour to a conglomerate that CAN afford to pay for such labour ? Had she been sat on her backside at home enjoying her 52" television, while perusing the internet for her next holiday to Monte Carlo, yes I get the point - her argument wasn't against the work, but the lack of training, insights and prospects it was bringing to the table for her.

Not everyone on benefits are on them because they want to be, but are forced by the economy, such as it is at the moment, to bide them over until something else comes along. Those that do use it as a life choice - they should be dealt with, but tarring all with the same brush is rather narrow minded by all who do.

I shall safely assume that the 3 judges who ruled on this where not there as part of the "back to work scheme" and actually knew what they were talking about when making the ruling :D

[Sid Squid]

SS - Can I assume you have never had to resort to using the benefit system?
No, you can't.
You take such a strong stance in vilifying all those that are on benefits, be it as a stop gap or a life choice, and seem to feel they need to be belittled even more by forcing them into slave labour.
Vilifying? How so - I have strong opinions on this, opinions shaped by experience, (mine and others), of exactly of how painfully corrosive an easy relationship with benefit reliance is to those suffer it. I wouldn't wish an existence on benefits on anyone - and I also fully understand how the slide into it occurs oh so easily, too often when it need not.
Gary has an opinion on this, as much as you do, but by ridiculing and resorting to insults, seriously weakens your argument. Is it entirely necessary to resort to belittling Gary, or anyone for that matter, into your way of seeing this argument?
And I did this how? I didn't insult anyone, certainly I poked fun, of course if you care not to see the difference... I also feel that Gary is not being objective, and I said as much - his original response decided that, not I.

[dizzyblonde]

I can bet my last penny, that anyone who suddenly finds themselves jobless won't take the first job offered to them in the job centre, nor take a job cleaning streets to tide them over. It's alright to say so in principle, we all would like to say that....makes us look pc. Really....you go for what you know first.
In reality all those jobs in the job centre have a good 30~100 people chasing them and are usually put there by companies who have an obligation to advertise them, even if they go internally within their company.
Peg was in the job centre doing something once, and went to enquire about whatever it was and got told not to bother! If the job centre is telling someone with an awful lot of experience in many things, not to bother......how do you think the sweeping streets thing works?

I do understand what Suzukiness is getting at, I'm not keen on some of the comments made, especially as I know how extremely difficult it is to keep a family afloat when you are made redundant.

And yes, it could be said I could have got off my fat lazy butt in that time, but I left my perfectly good well paid job after maternity, all because my employer has draconian shift patterns unsuitable for my family. The company declares its a family friendly firm.....I can smell the bull poo now! Made it exceptionally difficult to go back...on purpose, because of my children, not for want of negotiating on my part.


Sid, I can see you making a little fun....but.....it does appear at first glance a vilification. It's not pleasant, and I have to be a little in disagreement, politely.

[yorkie_chris]

I can bet my last penny, that anyone who suddenly finds themselves jobless won't take the first job offered to them in the job centre, nor take a job cleaning streets to tide them over. It's alright to say so in principle, we all would like to say that....makes us look pc. Really....you go for what you know first.

..how do you think the sweeping streets thing works?


Of course you would go for what you know first, the fields you have experience in are more likely to be successful and a lot better prospects with valid experience.
20 years experience as a sheet metalworker... oh I'll apply to be a baker then... Have I missed the point or are you stating the completely bleeding obvious? :-P


I may also point out the obvious that it would generally be the done thing to look for jobs in your own field first, and then perhaps after a couple of weeks start to perhaps consider something else.


Sid phrases his arguments at a higher level than garynortheast' opening post on this matter. Perhaps you might give the thread a second glance and perhaps try and separate the serious points from the humorous ones.

[dizzyblonde]

Go back to the post about the truck driver..and his 20 yrs of work. So yeah, slightly missing point of that post. My bad on that part for not clarifying.

The way I read a lot of posts, not just Sids, appear and have been read by myself, of being slightly self righteous. As Susukiness pointed out....perhaps from those never having faced unemployment....


So I shall keep with pointing out the obvious. It appears the obvious is being ignored.

Having driven far afield, personally dropping off CVs Peg had many job offers, and was spoilt for choice. Never going for anything other than what he wanted to do. Couldmt do that if he owas on a scheme at poundland.

[yorkie_chris]

So I shall keep with pointing out the obvious. It appears the obvious is being ignored.

Having driven far afield, personally dropping off CVs Peg had many job offers, and was spoilt for choice. Never going for anything other than what he wanted to do. Couldmt do that if he owas on a scheme at poundland.

Now then lets point out the ridiculous differences in these cases here that should defy any attempt to draw parallels.

Peg has a few more things going for him. He has transport. Experience. References. Saleable skills. Oh and being the industrious type he was probably out of a job for what? A month? 6 weeks?


A quick google didn't turn up any details of these schemes, however I thought they were aimed at people who had been unemployed for 6 months or more? And for a 2-week placement. Hardly the same.

[yorkie_chris]

Not to mention the fact that her self seeking grab for a litigious solution makes her exactly the sort of person that many wouldn't want to employ. I sincerely hope it comes back to bite her on the bum. This is a bad judgement, a nod to the unemployable to cement their position of much rights and no responsibilities, not to mention painfully selfish.

It doesn't say what her degree is in but I would hazard a guess that the jobs market for someone with a 3rd in sociology isn't exactly lively, she might have set herself up for a career at maxcompoforu.com or something.

[dizzyblonde]

3 months.....but what if it had gotten over 6 months? I doubt it would, but its getting harder and harder to get another so quickly.

Remember he is over 40,.and with an increasingly obvious flaw in his health.

I'm using him as an example but it could be anybody. Bearing in mind the job he has now was lined up for someone with vastly more experience and much older.

It's ok to say, oh but Mr man with 20 yrs experience can retrain to enhance his chances, but you can't gain age when there's somebody younger already 'enhancing their chances'?

It really is pot luck out there at the moment

[yorkie_chris]

After 6 months, a 2 week gap in looking for part of the day is not going to kill you, and presumably a reference from the devil himself isn't going to hurt your chances.

[Spank86]

I can bet my last penny, that anyone who suddenly finds themselves jobless won't take the first job offered to them in the job centre, nor take a job cleaning streets to tide them over.
I might not take the first job offered to me in a job centre, although if it had been three months I would, but I'd take a job cleaning streets.

What on earth do you find so objectionable about people who sweep? It's a valuable and perfectly respectable job. I'd certainly take it over a toilet cleaner but I've done my share of cleaning jobs in the past including loos, It's not fun but I needed the money.

[dizzyblonde]

2 week gap?

[dizzyblonde]

I might not take the first job offered to me in a job centre, although if it had been three months I would, but I'd take a job cleaning streets.

What on earth do you find so objectionable about people who sweep? It's a valuable and perfectly respectable job. I'd certainly take it over a toilet cleaner but I've done my share of cleaning jobs in the past including loos, It's not fun but I needed the money.

What obligations do you have?

Mortgage?
Children?
Bills?

Would cleaning streets cover that?

Or do you hope if you hold out one more week you can get a job you know will help, not hinder your family?*


*I'm actually being more devils advocate than anything. I don't have a problem with it, I'm slightly more in touch with reality from experience of the present jobs climate. Road sweepers at the council used to be on a bang tidy wage!!

[Spank86]

Take out children and yes, I've got those.

Cleaning streets would go a fair way to covering that as a job for serco. I could also do what I've done before and work 3 jobs.

Either way just because I've got A job doesnt mean I can't look for another job, instead or as well as. I didn't get my current work by quitting my old job to give me time to look.

[yorkie_chris]

2 week gap?

This sociology* bint was asked to go for a 2 week placement.

*Must be, or politics, nobody else would be *rsed to do the research, and go to court for the sake of £50 a week. The time would be better invested doing some worthwhile work.

[dizzyblonde]

Take out children and yes, I've got those.

Cleaning streets would go a fair way to covering that as a job for serco. I could also do what I've done before and work 3 jobs.

Either way just because I've got A job doesnt mean I can't look for another job, instead or as well as. I didn't get my current work by quitting my old job to give me time to look.

There's the answer. You don't have dependants. Seriously different mentality when you have kids and looking for a job. You've only got yourself to feed, house and clothe.(no offense meant there btw)
Also you are in employment, and we all know its so much easier finding a job whilst in employment. Just because somebody is jobless, doesn't mean they have quit. I seem to recall, if that's the case you aren't entitled to Jsa.
Being the sort that hires and fires with Peg, we know exactly how employers look at the unemployed.....say applying through the job centre. Very narrow minded, along the lines of 'must be lazy, they'be applied through there' and disregard.....don't be thinking its not like that.

[SuzukiNess]

Oh I see, you are of course so right when so many are all wrong,


Anyone who's nailed their colours so firmly but ridiculously to the mast with a diatribe such as yours is in a poor position to critcise (sic) anyone else.

Yeah! That's exactly what I was getting at - oh wait. No, no those are definitely YOUR words and a ludicrous fantasy of YOURS that that is what I might possibly think. At no point did I in any way suggest that YOUR bizarre suggestion is what I consider at all suitable.


This is not a discussion that suits your temperament, in that presently objectivity lies as a notion beyond your grasp.



And I did this how? I didn't insult anyone, certainly I poked fun, of course if you care not to see the difference... I also feel that Gary is not being objective, and I said as much - his original response decided that, not I.
on the insults, see above. I do care to see the difference between poking fun and blatantly implying someone else, who has a difference of opinion to you, is stupid



Vilifying? How so - I have strong opinions on this, opinions shaped by experience, (mine and others), of exactly of how painfully corrosive an easy relationship with benefit reliance is to those suffer it. I wouldn't wish an existence on benefits on anyone - and I also fully understand how the slide into it occurs oh so easily, too often when it need not. so pushing them out into the streets to sweep, poundland to pack shelves, and whatever other civic duty would be demeaning enough to ENSURE they don't slide into an existence on benefits, is just the trick?
anyway, here's a few of your extremely biased opinions of human beings on benefits..

Not to mention the fact that her self seeking grab for a litigious solution makes her exactly the sort of person that many wouldn't want to employ. I sincerely hope it comes back to bite her on the bum. This is a bad judgement, a nod to the unemployable to cement their position of much rights and no responsibilities, not to mention painfully selfish.

I'd have long term benefit claimants sweeping streets and other such civic services, but it hardly matters if it's Poundland or Harrods

and on the subject of objectivity... I fear the blinkers are only on your head...

[Spank86]

There's the answer. You don't have dependants. Seriously different mentality when you have kids and looking for a job. You've only got yourself to feed, house and clothe.(no offense meant there btw)
I don't see how it changes much, I still have the same requirements, only greater. I'd still rather work (and with tax credits and the like be better off than on jobseekers) and work as much as I need to doing whatever I need to. In my opinion jobseekers and all other things are a last resort to be used for the minimum possible time.



Also you are in employment, and we all know its so much easier finding a job whilst in employment. Just because somebody is jobless, doesn't mean they have quit. I seem to recall, if that's the case you aren't entitled to Jsa.
Exactly, take the job and then find the next one while you're working the first sweeping streets or whatever.


Being the sort that hires and fires with Peg, we know exactly how employers look at the unemployed.....say applying through the job centre. Very narrow minded, along the lines of 'must be lazy, they'be applied through there' and disregard.....don't be thinking its not like that.

so take the cleaning job!!! Get your foot back on that ladder and keep searching for the one you really want (hypothetically). This is exactly my point. don't take the first job you're offered if it doesnt suit but after a few months take what you can get because a CV with unemployed for 6 months... a year... whatever looks bad. A CV with a rubbish job on it looks a lot better, especially after you've spun it a bit.

[Spank86]

so pushing them out into the streets to sweep, poundland to pack shelves, and whatever other civic duty would be demeaning enough to ENSURE they don't slide into an existence on benefits, is just the trick?
What on earth do you lot all seem to think is so demeaning about retail or cleaning work?


Seriously, I don't get it. they are perfectly good, respectable jobs. I think this probably says a lot more than anything else about the problem of getting many unemployed people back to work.

Clearly however I'm the lowest of the low for having done both jobs which obviously leaves me completely unsuited to discuss the matter. :p

[SuzukiNess]

What on earth do you lot all seem to think is so demeaning about retail or cleaning work? :p

apologies, my post may have come across as implying that, it wasn't meant too - it was highlighting a previous comment that doing voluntary work at a place of choice wasn't suitable/giving enough back/working hard enough etc while on benefits.

[Spank86]

I see.

It wasn't just your comment though. It seems to be a common theme that either I and the people that agree with these work schemes or the people against them think theres something demeaning about the jobs that they are asked to do.

I actually agree with the result of the court case, The scheme is flawed. But I also agree with the general thrust of the scheme, although it should allow for things like voluntary work with museums etc as being creditable towards the scheme (at least in the short term).

[dizzyblonde]

Look Spank. I don't think we are far from the same sort of ethic or opinion. There is nothing wrong with any sort of job*.



However. If you are ever unfortunate to be made redundant in this mad time........


Please of course give us your experiences ;)

*Apart from the wage to cover your obligations.
Note I am not advocating the truly lazy dole dosser, merely those who aren't work shy lazy people who may happen to be unemployed far longer than they ever expected

[yorkie_chris]

I'm glad they won this case. I sincerely hope someone rams the whole scheme up
Ca-morons @rse and follows it up with the sharp end of a pineapple. He's a 2hat.

on the insults, see above. I do care to see the difference between poking fun and blatantly implying someone else, who has a difference of opinion to you, is stupid

so pushing them out into the streets to sweep, poundland to pack shelves, and whatever other civic duty would be demeaning enough to ENSURE they don't slide into an existence on benefits, is just the trick?
anyway, here's a few of your extremely biased opinions of human beings on benefits..

and on the subject of objectivity... I fear the blinkers are only on your head...

For the sake of balance that is the objective and factual argument offered. Oh wait...


Regarding the silly bint with the court case... that's having a dig at her for being a c*nt, she could be a brain surgeon by now but I'd still think she was being a c*nt for bringing silly court cases when she was supposed to be looking for work.

[Spank86]

Unfortunatley, for the purposes of this discussion anyway, I'm in a pretty secure job, If i get let go it will be because I messed up big style.

I can only draw on past experiences and whilst I've not been made redundant I've worked more than one job at a time before to make ends meet and would be prepared if not happy to do so again.

I know a guy who had four jobs in different places because he couldnt find anything fulltime back in the 90's, he was doing one or two days a week at three different places and evening work as a cleaner.

[k1ngy SV]

Okay Im going to start a new *debate* i can see...

Hate the je*ks who claim disability when f0*k alls wrong with them.
I know afew people who are scamming the system for a easy life. for example someone aged 19 who has ortism at 4 years old... he spends his money on red bull and fags.. blows all his £150/200? on crap every month for starters.

He doesnt work, doesnt plan on getting a job ever... :smt018

* & guess what the thing what annoys me the most is, NOTHINGS WRONG WITH HIM - hes got good grades, got a gf, bla bla bla *

I myself have a unlucky 45*degree curvature i was born with at the top of my back, get CRONIC BACK PAIN often... and receive nothing but some noxaprox'n (spelling wrong) from my doctor which make my head spin and make me lazy and they still dont stop the pain.

Another story with a fat kid i know he must be about 15/16stone (aged 15), Nothing wrong with him, complains of bad back and gets disability money...

Makes me Sick how its one for one and another for another :puker:
just like that thread about the police women, http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?p=2830253#post2830253

[Spank86]

I'm not getting tangled up in this one.

We all know cheating any system is bad, thats why it's called cheating, what constitutes cheating however in individual cases is not for me to decide.

[TamSV]

What on earth do you lot all seem to think is so demeaning about retail or cleaning work?

Quite. I don't think anyone on the "pro" side of this has suggested the work is, or should be, demeaning - although such thoughts are being attributed to us. The claimants in this case didn't suggest it was beneath them.

Equating this to "working for free" demonstrates a staggering sense of entitlement IMO. Terms like "slave labour" are ridiculous. Stacking a few shelves in Poundland is slave labour? Give me a break. It's hardly Bridge over the River Kwai.

[k1ngy SV]

Stacking a few shelves in Poundland is slave labour? Give me a break. It's hardly Bridge over the River Kwai.

You seen the heavy vrwebgvreq you have to lift...Oh hell no! :smt082