welfare reforms

[brighton hippy]

is it me but does it strike anyone as funny that nulabour are getting ready to force everyone back to work in a recession?
Not against the plans but might be worth holding fire actually coming up with some training schemes that might actually benefit the people sent on them.
so as the economy picks up you can go look you have skills there are jobs go.
rather than trying to bully the unemployable into jobs when there are not many to be have and they don't have any skills anybody wants.
Or is that just too simple

 

[Sven]

i worked for a policy research institute for a while - interviewing company directors about what skills they would be looking for in the next 10 years and talking to the unemployed to try and get them onto training courses. That was around Sheffield so you had a declining manufacturing base and a whole load of ex miners who were still in working age living locally.


so in some areas they do try and tailor the training packages locally to what employers want. or they have done. not sure how effective it has been.

What jobs are companies looking for in Sheffield, Mr Deputy?

 

[bubsnicket]

Very few people are "unemployable" - so long as they have a hand and a couple of legs they can do most jobs! Why is it the governments job to get people the relevant skills? If some sectors of society cant be bothered with an education why should we have to force them onto training schemes? Perhaps replacing benefits with some form of low paid government work for a couple of days a week would be a good idea? There are loads of leaves on my street that need picking up! At least that way the lazy barstewards will see the benefit of a propper job or getting the training themselves.

 

[brighton hippy]

er council already employs street cleaners?
why is its the governments fault.
allowing a lot of children to have a really shite education then malinger on the dole queue other benefits for years and years.
decide to change the rules and go OI get a job whose going to employ them?
employers will rather have a hard working pole than a pissed off chav.
can't blame them but crime goes down when chavs actually have a job etc etc

 

[brummieboy1]

No wonder we are the prime target for Economic Migrants. Where else in the world are people paid, long term. to NOT work. Whats that all about?

 

[rockpile]

Getting lazy,workshy barsteward off the dole/sick/whtecer has long been spoken of by governments of both political hues. No-onwwill achieve much without a radical upheaval of the benefits system and are we ready to be really harsh to these unfortunates? Some Peruvian cadigan wearing,tree huggging, whale saving, sandal embossed liberal will be out there pleading the case for the slobs and chavv and nothing will change.

 

[All_I_Want]

er council already employs street cleaners?
why is its the governments fault.
allowing a lot of children to have a really shite education then malinger on the dole queue other benefits for years and years.
decide to change the rules and go OI get a job whose going to employ them?
employers will rather have a hard working pole than a pissed off chav.
can't blame them but crime goes down when chavs actually have a job etc etc

Seems to me that theres going to be millions more "pissed off chavs" if thats what you think the dole queue consists of. Funny really, the gubmint says we need migrants to help the economy, then the economy goes into nosedive and unemployment is set to rise like a rocket, but do we send them back? Oh no, its just that theres more chavs now......

 

[Grownup_Rafbrat]

Very few people are "unemployable" - so long as they have a hand and a couple of legs they can do most jobs! Why is it the governments job to get people the relevant skills? If some sectors of society cant be bothered with an education why should we have to force them onto training schemes? Perhaps replacing benefits with some form of low paid government work for a couple of days a week would be a good idea? There are loads of leaves on my street that need picking up! At least that way the lazy barstewards will see the benefit of a propper job or getting the training themselves.

In the twenties, my grandfather, when not in and out of hospital getting his eye fixed after a wound at third Ypres did not heal well, was an unemployed plasterer for a lot of time. (They didn't plaster in Winter, for example). He was not allowed his dole money unless he worked clearing snow, picking litter, or doing any cr@p job the dole office gave him. When he was in hospital, no money was given at all, meaning that at one time my aunt and grandmother faced Christmas on the street until an ex gratia payment was made for my aunt.

I would not like to see a return to those days, as it was a disgusting way to treat someone, made worse by the fact that his inability to work at that time was caused by fighting for his country. Neither he nor my grandmother were lazy barstewards, and in the end he got better, got steady work, and provided a home for his family. By cycling from Colchester to Cambridge on a Sunday, working there all week, and cycling back on a Saturday afternoon, until they had saved enough to move.

I agree that the benefit system should be reformed, and I am sickened by the number of second and even third generation scroungers, who can't be arrsed to work in low-paid jobs. I'd like to see time limits applied, sick notes checked (as happens to those of us in jobs), and unemployment no longer a career choice, but I would not like to see a return to those days.

Along with the reform of the benefit system, I'd also like to see employers shaken up. Many of them get subsidies for taking people off the dole, keep them on temporary contracts for the required number of weeks at a low pay rate and cr@p terms and conditions. When they should be giving them a permanent job they return them to the dole, and take another one instead. This has to be wrong.

 

[Herrumph]

Comparing today's welfare state with eighty years ago is hardly a rational way to illustrate what is being proposed. It was a different world with hugely different level of problems - but well done to Gramps for getting out there and doing well in the end.

In the twenties and indeed late forties genuinely disabled people were expected to get out and work. Nowadays there are more registered disabled than after 2 world wars. It is to disguise the unemployment figures. Many have self induced ailments (obese, unfit, lazy, educationally unable, unwilling to lower themselves to menial work etc).

It is those who must be made to work so society can look after the genuinely needy

 

[Sven]

Very few people are "unemployable" - so long as they have a hand and a couple of legs they can do most jobs! Why is it the governments job to get people the relevant skills? If some sectors of society cant be bothered with an education why should we have to force them onto training schemes? Perhaps replacing benefits with some form of low paid government work for a couple of days a week would be a good idea? There are loads of leaves on my street that need picking up! At least that way the lazy barstewards will see the benefit of a propper job or getting the training themselves.

In the twenties, my grandfather, when not in and out of hospital getting his eye fixed after a wound at third Ypres did not heal well, was an unemployed plasterer for a lot of time. (They didn't plaster in Winter, for example). He was not allowed his dole money unless he worked clearing snow, picking litter, or doing any cr@p job the dole office gave him. When he was in hospital, no money was given at all, meaning that at one time my aunt and grandmother faced Christmas on the street until an ex gratia payment was made for my aunt.

I would not like to see a return to those days, as it was a disgusting way to treat someone, made worse by the fact that his inability to work at that time was caused by fighting for his country. Neither he nor my grandmother were lazy barstewards, and in the end he got better, got steady work, and provided a home for his family. By cycling from Colchester to Cambridge on a Sunday, working there all week, and cycling back on a Saturday afternoon, until they had saved enough to move.

I agree that the benefit system should be reformed, and I am sickened by the number of second and even third generation scroungers, who can't be arrsed to work in low-paid jobs. I'd like to see time limits applied, sick notes checked (as happens to those of us in jobs), and unemployment no longer a career choice, but I would not like to see a return to those days.

Along with the reform of the benefit system, I'd also like to see employers shaken up. Many of them get subsidies for taking people off the dole, keep them on temporary contracts for the required number of weeks at a low pay rate and cr@p terms and conditions. When they should be giving them a permanent job they return them to the dole, and take another one instead. This has to be wrong.

My bold.

Don't the unemployed have to prove that they are looking for work any more? Don't they eventually have to try for jobs that the DWP send them to? Don't they lose their benefits if they don't take up job offers and if they are sacked or resign from those jobs they take up?

My italics.

I don't know about elsewhere but I know that the DWP in Sheffield and Skipton are pretty robust in this area.

My underlined

I agree entirely. companies employing over a certain number (the exact number escapes me but I think it might be 100) are supposed to have a workforce which includes 10% disabled, I know few who actually do.

Not having a go but isn't job seekers allowance £47 still? I don't know how single people with no dependents can survive on this.

 

[Grownup_Rafbrat]

Comparing today's welfare state with eighty years ago is hardly a rational way to illustrate what is being proposed. It was a different world with hugely different level of problems - but well done to Gramps for getting out there and doing well in the end.

In the twenties and indeed late forties genuinely disabled people were expected to get out and work. Nowadays there are more registered disabled than after 2 world wars. It is to disguise the unemployment figures. Many have self induced ailments (obese, unfit, lazy, educationally unable, unwilling to lower themselves to menial work etc).

It is those who must be made to work so society can look after the genuinely needy

I was trying to make the point that we don't want to go back to those days, when for instance a mill-hand unemployed in Preston would have their dole stopped for turning down a job painting and decorating in Portsmouth.

But I do agree entirely that the Government's plan to massage the unemployment figures by putting people onto 'disability' has been a disaster, and we need everyone who can work, to work.

Sadly one of Grandad's Great Grand-daughters - my second cousin or some such, has adopted the scrounging lifestyle. At 30 she has done six weeks of paid employment since she left school at 16. This apparently entitles her to claim, because 'I've paid in'. I'd love to see her 'disability benefits' stopped, and those of her husband, who has five children by three women, all kept by the state (i.e. me!) and has also never worked for longer than the two or three weeks required to keep the dole people off his back.

 

[whitecity]

Not having a go but isn't job seekers allowance £47 still? I don't know how single people with no dependents can survive on this.

Is £47 the total financial assistance received, or just the weekly cash handout for doing nothing?

 

[brighton hippy]

its possibly the wrong time to start a reform as employers won't be asking for lots of new employees at the moment.
but a good time to start making some realistic plans.
Ideas any single parent long time unemployed claimant who isn't seriously disabled to have a basic skills assessment no test no cash.

anyone below a certain level of literacy compulsory basic skills course theres few jobs these days for those that can't read or write without that fixed theres no point.

 

[All_I_Want]

Is £47 the total financial assistance received, or just the weekly cash handout for doing nothing?

This is the total cash handout if you, for example live with parents and do absolutely sweet FA. If you have your own place to look after the tax free handout is MASSIVELY increased.

 

[interestednovice]

Jobseekers allowance is only one benefit. There's also housing benefit and council tax benefit as minimums for a single person with no children. The sums go up if you become a parent or can claim disability benefit. You don't have to be physically disabled, you can claim for depression or other psychological conditions you can even be on disability benefit because your depression was caused by unemployment.

There are a range of other subsidies and handouts available which aren't detailed on the DWP site.

 

[Sven]

Not having a go but isn't job seekers allowance £47 still? I don't know how single people with no dependents can survive on this.

Is £47 the total financial assistance received, or just the weekly cash handout for doing nothing?

If living alone, then they can get council tax relief and housing benefit. However they still have to pay heat and light bills and water rates. After that there isn't a lot left for food, communications (at least stamps for posting job applications etc) bus fares etc.

 

[Warrior-Webbing]

It hits me that "maybe" nulabour having now run out of money, have decided to change the system, as the more people working = less people claiming?

 

[Grownup_Rafbrat]

its possibly the wrong time to start a reform as employers won't be asking for lots of new employees at the moment.
but a good time to start making some realistic plans.
Ideas any single parent long time unemployed claimant who isn't seriously disabled to have a basic skills assessment no test no cash.

anyone below a certain level of literacy compulsory basic skills course theres few jobs these days for those that can't read or write without that fixed theres no point.

There are ways of avoiding those. You start the course, then go off sick. Or you start the course, fall out with the trainer, and refuse to go back because they're 'discriminating against you'. Both ploys used by a person known to me in the last year.

 

[Le_addeur_noir]

I doubt if any government in now or in the near future will have the cojones to make the chavs and workshy work for fear of losing their benefits.John Major made noises about workfare around 1993 and re-titled unemployment benefit jobseeker's allowance,but this was window-dressing.Then Bliar made a statement that being unemployed by choice in his brave new world was not going to be an option,and we all know what happened when he assumed power.The long-term unemployed were shunted off on to invalidity benefit.

There could be trouble ahead if unemployment rises by another million and there are still large numbers of foreign workers in Britain.

Harriet Harman piloted through a law requiring prospective employers to employ ethnic minorities and women in preference to British male applicants.Sounds racist and sexist to me,but that's Liarbore for you.

 

[interestednovice]

Brown and Darling plan to create jobs with 'public works' spending financed with more debt and inflating the money supply. Much of the 'public works' will involve creating new bureaucratic positions. Their goal will not be to have these new public employees do something especially useful, because they don't know what that would be, and they don't have time to train them. However, expect the Guardian Jobs suppliment to get thicker and lots of country lanes being tarmac'd ove by teams of long-term unemployed whilst the cost of most imported goods (e.g. food) goes up at a sharp clip.

When the inflation eventually forces them to stop printing new money to pay all the new public sector workers, expect even higher levels of unemployment as the wealth generating private sector will be in an even worse state than before.