Civic Contracts for Benefits Claimants in Westminster

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Mr_Fingerz, Dec 12, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

  2. Yup, they'll claim minimum wage and it will of course be inhumane and degrading treatment and breech their human rights etc. etc. ' that claims direct?'
  3. Why?
  4. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    It's all to do with "The Big Society". If you're in one of the favoured groups, then you are deemed to be making a socially valuable contribution to the lives of all of the inhabitants of the borough (alternatively, the tory council thinks that you'll be so pathetically grateful for the social roof over your head that you'll vote for them - why not they tried before).
  5. Novel, but isn't this just an alternative take on what happens at the minute? It's just that normally the favoured groups are those with mostly self-inflicted "needs" which make them a liability to everyone else - ?
  6. Every council should do this.

    Until there is no litter on pavements, no graffitti on walls, no broken benches or bins, no dog shit on the cricket pitch, and so on; there should be no free money. As winter approaches and ice sets on the road, we should see the dole claimants out in force, racking up enough hours to quantify their years takings, with spades and grit making the roads safe for those who pay for them to be alive.

    If you want your jobseekers benefit, surely that is because you are job seeking. And thus, if somebody gives you a job, you'll take it with arms open wide, right? I see the fatal flaw in this is that the government will have to find out that actually people who are persistently on JSA aren't jobSEEKING at all. They're jobAVOIDING and simply JSA-seeking.

    When I was a kid, if I wanted pocket money I had to help out with jobs around the house. Do the washing up, cut the grass, wash the car; and mum & dad gave me a couple of quid to go and buy sweets and comics. I don't see why the government are unable to follow the same principle - those not at work, fine, give them vouchers for food and bills, to ensure they are kept alive to keep looking for a job. But don't hand any cash out in cash form, unless they are doing some jobs around the community to quantify it.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    Have you looked at the job market lately? For a great many on JSA, the pathetically miserly sum of £105.00 per week for a couple is nothing but a lifeline. In some areas there are no jobs to be had even at minimum wage if you're over the age of 21 because the employers would rather pay school leavers the lower rate of minimum wage.

    As for vouchers and no money "unless you do something to quantify it" do you want the unemployed to wear orange jumpsuits and Hi-viz jackets bearing the slogan "Community Benefits Claimant" as they go about their daily lives as well?

    I'd avoid trying to define Social Policy until you know something about it if I were you.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. £105 a week equates to nearly 20 hours work under minimum wage.

    Thus I think an hour or 2 a week helping out in the community would not be too much to ask.

    I mean, if you don't have a job, what else is there to do?

    Either way, dole payments should be structured. Being involved in community-benefiting projects, and doing work for the council; as well as actually applying for jobs and making an effort in interviews; should gain points. Sitting on Wetherspoons balcony smoking next to your 3 kids and gnattering away to the other 19 year old single mum doleys, or smashing up bus shelters, or otherwise not occupying yourself in constructive matters, should score negative points. These points should not only be used for priority disputes, but also just used to gauge how much you should be paid. The system of "if you're in this position you get this money" is unsustainable because those putting the effort in and in genuine trouble get shafted by the wasters who can't be arsed.

    Either way, I maintain that everyone could give up a few hours a week to quantify their money.
  9. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    Except that £105.00 p/wk is for a couple. So that's £52.50 p/wk each.

    As for benefits being structured - they are. There is also provision in statute for claimants to be sent for compulsory training as a condition of their right to receive benefit.

    Failing to attend interviews (including job interviews) results in the loss of benefit.

    Working upto 16 hours a week is permitted, however any monies earned in excess of your benefit sees your benefit cut by that amount. So there is no incentive to get even a low paying job when there is no real benefit that you can see.

    As I said, learn something about social policy before you opine about the rights and wrongs of the system, you should leave your prejudices and preconceptions at home too.
  10. skid2

    skid2 LE Book Reviewer

    I've an idea. £105.00 per couple per week While we're waiting for the private sector to take up the slack and find them some gainful employment, Put them in the army.
    Think of the benefits. They'll provide a public service, cover on fire service strikes, prison officer disputes, shovelling snow, throwing students off trains They will get exercise and will be much healthier.......and at £105.00 per couple per week much cheaper than real soldiers. This is where the real money gets saved: after a while these worthless blights on society will get the hang of military life. The system will be self perpetuating. Anyone (especially expensive NCOs) who have served over five years is to be given notice of compulsory redundancy. And let go, by this time the economy will be on the upturn and their training and experience will be welcomed by the private sector. The defence budget will slashed and we can spend the money elsewhere. While they are living on bases their expensive social housing can be given to recently redundant soldiers, as long as they can afford the rent. The possibilities on this are endless.
  11. An hour or two a week isn't too bad, its when that becomes a full time job doing shitty jobs for your benefits, becoming slavery. And have difficulty looking for work because of this.

    But the benefits exclude the perks of free healthcare, discounts on more stuff than even students.
    Money towards house costs etc.

    They should get rid of child benefit and the money saved given back in lifting the tax threshold, therefore people who work with especially lower paid jobs will se a slight rise in income.

    Also if you can get casual work let them earn up to £50 a week with no drop in benefits. that would put money into the economy, and if added to benefits they may be liable for a bit of tax to put back in the pot.
  12. I have no problem with telling chavs to toe the line or lose your benefits, nor do I have a problem with rewarding people who do more than sit on their backsides scrounging off of the dole.

    From the coucils point of view it is better to fill your social houses with workers who will pay rent and help fund council projects, than with scroungers who will only ever be a drain on resources.
    The sort of people who join the stabs or the part time plods or do charity work are the sort who will not be unemployed for long and therefor are a better choice of tennant than those who do nothing for their dole.
  13. The race to the bottom, Idiot.
  14. This is all lovely in theory.

    However it does not happen. I used to have a liberal stance before I actually worked with these people for a while.

    The vast majority spend their lives lying, deceiving and finding loopholes to avoid working.

    The long-term unemployed (over 12 months) get sent on programmes to aid in them getting a job. All they have to do is see-out the end of the 'course', ensure they don't get a job, and are back living hassle-free on everyone else's money. The one's that don't comply rarely get written up. And when they do, the Jobcentre does little about it.

    I heard of one single wretch ever getting his JSA stopped. It was stopped for 6 weeks. He never turned up, claimed depression, used abusive and extreme language, smoked weed inside, attacked his teachers and threatened to shoot me.

    The system is a mess. It's a spiral. These nobody's are born into it, and are rewarded with more money when they breed.

    The solution is to make things very simple. You lose your job, you have 3 months to sort one out, where the government will pay for your bills. No job after six months? Then you get the set amount everyone else gets. You work as a community service 'helper'; cleaning grafiti, weeding public parks etc. Don't like it? Tough. Get a job. Can't get a job? Move to an area that's hiring? And what happened to entrepreneurial spirit? Cleaning business? Sell flowers? Escort?
  15. That is precisely what I am on about. No matter how little we are paying people, we should get a service for that money. It it unfair to pay the jobless for doing nothing, whilst those with jobs have to work to earn. And then get penalised for earning. What ******* sense does it make that when you don't have a job, the only incentive to get a job is actually having to get up in the morning, hard graft all day, and then get half your wages clawed back in tax, NI, loss of free stuff and discounts etc. Who the **** would want anything below a medium-salary job? Anybody on less than £10/hour will end up with little more money at the end of the month with no job at all.

    There needs to be an incentive. In a society where people like buying shit, cash is a perfectly good incentive. But cash cannot be a good incentive when you hand it out indiscriminately with no control over what it is then spent on. If you gave people some shitty jobs to do, in return for minimal pay, they would soon go and find themselves a job. As it is, we put jobs in their hands and they still don't ******* want them. What we need is people who WANT to work, because those who WANT to work will put themselves out to get a job. And, 99% of times, get one.

    I live in an area where there are endless amounts of people on the dole. Yet any week I find myself without work (I'm a freelancer), I've never had ANY difficulty walking into one of the agencies on the high street and getting some days forklifting in somebody's yard or warehouse for £7.50/hour. The FACT is, the jobs ARE there, people just don't want to take them, because not working pays just as much as working, until you get onto the higher paid jobs - which in 9 out of 10 cases can't be had without first having a lower paid job.