Workfare can actually help the over 50s who are unemployed.
Let's say that Mr Smith, aged 60, does a workfare placement at a local supermarket. Prior to him starting, the supermarket manager is sceptical that he'll be able to keep up with his younger colleagues. But instead, Mr Smith is a highly effective and conscientious employee. At the end of the workfare programme, the manager offers Mr Smith a job (which he accepts), and is left with a more positive perception of older staff.
How is any of the above a bad thing?
Jeff
Family life on benefits
i find it repugnant that private companies are in effect getting free labour out of such schemes. taking advantage of people who mainly through no fault of their own, cant get gainful employment.
as a tax payer im against any such schemes when yet again tax payers are subsiding large private companies, albeit indirectly/camouflaged as "workfare"
i would be in favour of such schemes if they did benefit the public at large for instance, people worked on the countries infra structure, decorated old/disabled peoples homes, that sort of thing. where no profit that maybe made goes directly or indirectly into private firms.
people should be encouraged to take part for a few hours each week, but not with a carrot and stick approach. forcing people only ever ends up in resentment, and that just breeds a whole lotta grief in the long run.
as a tax payer im against any such schemes when yet again tax payers are subsiding large private companies, albeit indirectly/camouflaged as "workfare"
i would be in favour of such schemes if they did benefit the public at large for instance, people worked on the countries infra structure, decorated old/disabled peoples homes, that sort of thing. where no profit that maybe made goes directly or indirectly into private firms.
people should be encouraged to take part for a few hours each week, but not with a carrot and stick approach. forcing people only ever ends up in resentment, and that just breeds a whole lotta grief in the long run.
Hi Tony
I disagree.
The employers presumably pay the DSS to have the staff work for them, so British firms benefit from cheap labour and the burden on the state is reduced.
And it gives the unemployed person a chance to show an employer what s/he can do, meaning they might get offered a job, and at very least have the opportunity to get a good reference. And if someone has been out of work for a while, going to work and doing a good job could boost their confidence and their desire to get back into work.
So all in all, I see it as a win-win situation. We can either pay people for doing nothing, or we can pay them for doing something. IMHO, it's a no-brainer...
Jeff
I disagree.
The employers presumably pay the DSS to have the staff work for them, so British firms benefit from cheap labour and the burden on the state is reduced.
And it gives the unemployed person a chance to show an employer what s/he can do, meaning they might get offered a job, and at very least have the opportunity to get a good reference. And if someone has been out of work for a while, going to work and doing a good job could boost their confidence and their desire to get back into work.
So all in all, I see it as a win-win situation. We can either pay people for doing nothing, or we can pay them for doing something. IMHO, it's a no-brainer...
Jeff
reckon we are on opposing sides on this jeff 
i just dont agree with tax payers including unemployed people. when they were working they paid tax, national insurance, and vat (which the unemployed still pay)etc.subsidising or bailing out private companies, be it in the form of cheap labour, bank bailouts, subsidies to run train lines, communication companies getting a slice of the bbc tv tax to fund broadband infrastructure expansion, and so on.
if for instance a supermarket as more work than it as staff to do the work, then they should employ someone at the correct rate for the job.
by taking on free labour surely such firms are undermining the governments alleged efforts to create more jobs, more people with adequate incomes with cash to spend getting the economy going again.
i agree about the boost to confidence that getting into a work routine may bring, and maybe useful on a reference etc. but i dont accept that the majority of unemployed have lost the desire to work, i believe the vast majority wish to work (although i accept there is a sizeable bunch that have no intention of doing so).
i dont believe in forcing people into anything (except extreme/dire circumstances)they dont wish to do, as it only ever back fires in the long run (my opinion).
i just dont agree with tax payers including unemployed people. when they were working they paid tax, national insurance, and vat (which the unemployed still pay)etc.subsidising or bailing out private companies, be it in the form of cheap labour, bank bailouts, subsidies to run train lines, communication companies getting a slice of the bbc tv tax to fund broadband infrastructure expansion, and so on.
if for instance a supermarket as more work than it as staff to do the work, then they should employ someone at the correct rate for the job.
by taking on free labour surely such firms are undermining the governments alleged efforts to create more jobs, more people with adequate incomes with cash to spend getting the economy going again.
i agree about the boost to confidence that getting into a work routine may bring, and maybe useful on a reference etc. but i dont accept that the majority of unemployed have lost the desire to work, i believe the vast majority wish to work (although i accept there is a sizeable bunch that have no intention of doing so).
i dont believe in forcing people into anything (except extreme/dire circumstances)they dont wish to do, as it only ever back fires in the long run (my opinion).
I'm not a big fan of subsidies either, but AFAIK that isn't what's happening here. In fact, 'workfare' might well be a nice little earner for the DSS, if the employers pay an amount that exceeds the unemployed person's benefits and the admin involved in administering the scheme.to75ne wrote: i just dont agree with tax payers including unemployed people. when they were working they paid tax, national insurance, and vat (which the unemployed still pay)etc.subsidising or bailing out private companies
As an aside, when I was unemployed a few years ago I was actually frustrated that the DSS rules didn't allow me to work FOC for an employer and continue claiming benefits, as it would have allowed me to show an employer what I was capable of at no risk to them.
Surely the most important thing is to get as many people as possible into a position where their income is paid for by the private sector, not the state - whether that means workfare or a full-time job.to75ne wrote:by taking on free labour surely such firms are undermining the governments alleged efforts to create more jobs, more people with adequate incomes with cash to spend getting the economy going again.
Also, if a firm is spending less on staff then they can be more competitive, which I'm sure you'll agree can only benefit the wider economy.
It's only about forcing people to work in the same sense that your employer forces you to work by making your continued employment dependent upon it.to75ne wrote:i dont believe in forcing people into anything (except extreme/dire circumstances)they dont wish to do, as it only ever back fires in the long run (my opinion).
No-one is physically forcing anyone to do anything - the DSS is merely saying 'If you want money from us, that's fine, but we expect something in return', just like any employer would...
Jeff
i think we broadly agree jeff but, generations have strived, fought, suffered to get and earn certain rights. they have never ever been given by the great, the good and the powerful. they fought their God awful wars for them, suffered terrible housing conditions, terrible health care (if any), horrendous working conditions, piss poor pay. they really suffered.
they did not go through all that so that very clever greedy people became so clever and greedy they fecked the western worlds economy up probably permanently. sell off and/or export (globalisation) what they believed would be the reward for their struggles, their legacy, that future generations would have decent life's and prospects, with guaranteed rights to act as a safety net if and when things went wrong.
they did not go through all the grief so private companies/individuals could erode wages, privatise the health service, make money from free labour supplied by the dole queues. bail out out various companies who employed the clever greedy people who created the the problems via the tax that their descendants pay, instead of using it for education, health, repairing roads/infrastructure, pensions,dole, social security etc.
the onus these last few years seems to me that if you lose your job because the clever greedy people got to clever and greedy, its your fault, you lazy parasite. work for a pittance its good for the economy, there are company directors out there, you should work hard to pay their bonus's, and be grateful.
the above is mainly the reason why i find it repugnant that tax money is being used to subsidise private companies, and i dont like this attitude that seems to be creeping in, that people in particular the so called working class, the so called pressed/squeezed middle (i think they used to be middle class), are ungrateful, lazy cowsons who should be happy to take drastic long term cuts in their living standards and future prospects, even work for peanuts because its for the economy; we are all in it together afterall.
they did not go through all that so that very clever greedy people became so clever and greedy they fecked the western worlds economy up probably permanently. sell off and/or export (globalisation) what they believed would be the reward for their struggles, their legacy, that future generations would have decent life's and prospects, with guaranteed rights to act as a safety net if and when things went wrong.
they did not go through all the grief so private companies/individuals could erode wages, privatise the health service, make money from free labour supplied by the dole queues. bail out out various companies who employed the clever greedy people who created the the problems via the tax that their descendants pay, instead of using it for education, health, repairing roads/infrastructure, pensions,dole, social security etc.
the onus these last few years seems to me that if you lose your job because the clever greedy people got to clever and greedy, its your fault, you lazy parasite. work for a pittance its good for the economy, there are company directors out there, you should work hard to pay their bonus's, and be grateful.
the above is mainly the reason why i find it repugnant that tax money is being used to subsidise private companies, and i dont like this attitude that seems to be creeping in, that people in particular the so called working class, the so called pressed/squeezed middle (i think they used to be middle class), are ungrateful, lazy cowsons who should be happy to take drastic long term cuts in their living standards and future prospects, even work for peanuts because its for the economy; we are all in it together afterall.
Tony
The problem with benefits (apart from the fact that they encourage irresponsible behavior and attract bogus asylum seekers) is that someone has to pay for them! Tough choices need to be made right now, and if businesses are willing to employ thousands of people on workfare, then it might mean shorter operation waiting times, or more bobbies on the beat.
I agree that many unemployed people do want to get into work, and aren't lazy, but IMHO there are good reasons to support workfare. It benefits the state, the unemployed and employers. The only people it adversely affects are those who would prefer to lie in bed all day, whilst the taxpayer foots the bill for their lifestyle...
As for the rights that people have fought hard for, IMHO this country is way too obsessed with rights. The situation was summed up last summer, when the police didn't step in to stop the rioting, for fear of being accused of ooman rights abuses!
If I were the Met Commissioner, the rioting would have been brought to a swift end by use of tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon (and I'd have had the support of the non-Guardian reading public at large!).
Jeff
The problem with benefits (apart from the fact that they encourage irresponsible behavior and attract bogus asylum seekers) is that someone has to pay for them! Tough choices need to be made right now, and if businesses are willing to employ thousands of people on workfare, then it might mean shorter operation waiting times, or more bobbies on the beat.
I agree that many unemployed people do want to get into work, and aren't lazy, but IMHO there are good reasons to support workfare. It benefits the state, the unemployed and employers. The only people it adversely affects are those who would prefer to lie in bed all day, whilst the taxpayer foots the bill for their lifestyle...
As for the rights that people have fought hard for, IMHO this country is way too obsessed with rights. The situation was summed up last summer, when the police didn't step in to stop the rioting, for fear of being accused of ooman rights abuses!
If I were the Met Commissioner, the rioting would have been brought to a swift end by use of tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon (and I'd have had the support of the non-Guardian reading public at large!).Jeff
jeff,
i remember that thread on the nights of the riots as they were happening. as you may recall i am probably in 100% agreement with you as regards to the so called ooman rights of the rioters and the gutless, pathetic response of the various police forces. i dont mean ooman rights which in my opinion are only of use if you are a sexual deviant, criminal or terrorist, as they appear to be the only people that have them.
i am talking about long established rights, genuine rights that protect all people and society as a whole fought for by members of unions, political parties, special interest groups, churches, social commentators, philanthropists, the medical profession, peers of the realm, the legal profession, educationalists, ordinary day to day people, to name but a few.
rights that have given people a safety net, if they are ill, they get the best medical treatment available at zero cost, not the best providing you have the money to pay. free eduction even free university education. no one needs to starve, or suffer from the cold in winter, or have no where to live. the right to raise a family, the right to a descent job and descent pay. a descent basic liveable income for those who are out of work and have no other no means to support themselfs or their families. a descent liveable state pension for those who have done their time working and paying their way.etc.
the above are the type of rights are what i mean, not ooman rights.
for over a century and half various people and organisations have fought for these, everything from women getting the vote, to children being used as labour, to fair pay, descent work conditions etc. the great and the good never gave anything, not one thing ever, and now we appear to be in a the position that the great and good are eroding these rights using the state of the economy as the reason.
i remember that thread on the nights of the riots as they were happening. as you may recall i am probably in 100% agreement with you as regards to the so called ooman rights of the rioters and the gutless, pathetic response of the various police forces. i dont mean ooman rights which in my opinion are only of use if you are a sexual deviant, criminal or terrorist, as they appear to be the only people that have them.
i am talking about long established rights, genuine rights that protect all people and society as a whole fought for by members of unions, political parties, special interest groups, churches, social commentators, philanthropists, the medical profession, peers of the realm, the legal profession, educationalists, ordinary day to day people, to name but a few.
rights that have given people a safety net, if they are ill, they get the best medical treatment available at zero cost, not the best providing you have the money to pay. free eduction even free university education. no one needs to starve, or suffer from the cold in winter, or have no where to live. the right to raise a family, the right to a descent job and descent pay. a descent basic liveable income for those who are out of work and have no other no means to support themselfs or their families. a descent liveable state pension for those who have done their time working and paying their way.etc.
the above are the type of rights are what i mean, not ooman rights.
for over a century and half various people and organisations have fought for these, everything from women getting the vote, to children being used as labour, to fair pay, descent work conditions etc. the great and the good never gave anything, not one thing ever, and now we appear to be in a the position that the great and good are eroding these rights using the state of the economy as the reason.
Tony
I don't object to there being a safety net. I just don't see how workfare is at odds with that.
As for all the entitlements you write about that cost the state money, the problem is that:
A. Someone has to pay for them, taking money out of the productive economy and meaning higher taxes.
You might say 'The top 1% of the population own x% of the wealth, so let's tax them'. But the top 1% will soon leave if we go too far down that road, investing their money and skills elsewhere, and making us all poorer.
Another approach is to raise the money by borrowing from the bond market, and hope that the economy grows sufficiently to pay the spending spree. I'm not sure that's wise, however, as it's part of the reason this country is in the mess it's in.
B. They encourage irresponsibility. Why should people bother to build up enough wealth to look after their own health and wellbeing if they can rely on the state?
C. They contribute to bogus asylum claims. Why do you think so many immigrants from French speaking countries come here, and not to France?
As for your suggestion re. funding university degrees, don't get me started! This country has enough media studies graduates as it is, without the taxpayer forking out 10K per student to fund degrees that are more or less worthless from an economic perspective...
Jeff
I don't object to there being a safety net. I just don't see how workfare is at odds with that.
As for all the entitlements you write about that cost the state money, the problem is that:
A. Someone has to pay for them, taking money out of the productive economy and meaning higher taxes.
You might say 'The top 1% of the population own x% of the wealth, so let's tax them'. But the top 1% will soon leave if we go too far down that road, investing their money and skills elsewhere, and making us all poorer.
Another approach is to raise the money by borrowing from the bond market, and hope that the economy grows sufficiently to pay the spending spree. I'm not sure that's wise, however, as it's part of the reason this country is in the mess it's in.
B. They encourage irresponsibility. Why should people bother to build up enough wealth to look after their own health and wellbeing if they can rely on the state?
C. They contribute to bogus asylum claims. Why do you think so many immigrants from French speaking countries come here, and not to France?
As for your suggestion re. funding university degrees, don't get me started!
This country has enough media studies graduates as it is, without the taxpayer forking out 10K per student to fund degrees that are more or less worthless from an economic perspective...Jeff
jeff i appreciate your point of view and to a certain extent i tend to agree but its the injustice of it that guts me. generations of people who had it bad, did not have much materially and little or no real opportunity to improve their lot, sacrificed what little they did have, sometimes their life's to slowly make future generations life's better.
not forgetting the people who were materially rich and came from privileged backgrounds, who worked their entire life's attempting to improve the life's of everyone, more often than not being ostracised and marginalised by their peers and in some cases their own families.
all these generations of slow improvements now being eroded away with the excuse of "we have to repair the economy".
what and who is the economy for? it would seem to me that the current government and opposition seems to think its there solely for the city and big business to make more and more profit at the expense of the people of this country.
it would seem that the powers that be wish to roll back time to a pre victorian era when people were only needed to fight wars and produce goods. if they were not capable of working they were regarded and treated as little more than scum.
the workfare scheme i find repugnant because of the above, forcing people to work for private company's, for dole money. cheap labour, we should be better than that.
im getting off my soap box now and hitting the sack your be pleased to hear
regards tony
not forgetting the people who were materially rich and came from privileged backgrounds, who worked their entire life's attempting to improve the life's of everyone, more often than not being ostracised and marginalised by their peers and in some cases their own families.
all these generations of slow improvements now being eroded away with the excuse of "we have to repair the economy".
what and who is the economy for? it would seem to me that the current government and opposition seems to think its there solely for the city and big business to make more and more profit at the expense of the people of this country.
it would seem that the powers that be wish to roll back time to a pre victorian era when people were only needed to fight wars and produce goods. if they were not capable of working they were regarded and treated as little more than scum.
the workfare scheme i find repugnant because of the above, forcing people to work for private company's, for dole money. cheap labour, we should be better than that.
im getting off my soap box now and hitting the sack your be pleased to hear
regards tony
Tony
I think there's much to be said for the Victorian labour laws, when the free market was allowed to do what it does best and Britain was the most prosperous nation on earth. OK, that prosperity was partly due to the fact that we colonised most of the globe! But there were other reasons too, to do with our legal and economic frameworks - see http://www.michaelcovel.com/2011/12/18/ ... rosperity/
We can choose to tie up our businesses with all sorts of equalities and elf and safety red tape. But if the countries we're competing against don't reciprocate, isn't there a risk that Britain will be left behind in the global economy, and we'll end up hurting the very people we are seeking to protect?
Jeff
I think there's much to be said for the Victorian labour laws, when the free market was allowed to do what it does best and Britain was the most prosperous nation on earth. OK, that prosperity was partly due to the fact that we colonised most of the globe! But there were other reasons too, to do with our legal and economic frameworks - see http://www.michaelcovel.com/2011/12/18/ ... rosperity/
We can choose to tie up our businesses with all sorts of equalities and elf and safety red tape. But if the countries we're competing against don't reciprocate, isn't there a risk that Britain will be left behind in the global economy, and we'll end up hurting the very people we are seeking to protect?
Jeff
'It is a simple fact of life that business is more prone to hire if it is allowed to fire. The major risk to business investment, which is that of an ongoing workforce liability, is thereby removed.
Vince Cable's proposed shake-up of employment law is in truth of much more importance to the future of the UK economy than faffing around either with credit easing or squandering £12bn on a temporary tax cut. It's vitally important that the task is not ducked. The rights of the unemployed to work must be placed firmly above the protections of the already employed.'
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... -work.html
Jeff
Vince Cable's proposed shake-up of employment law is in truth of much more importance to the future of the UK economy than faffing around either with credit easing or squandering £12bn on a temporary tax cut. It's vitally important that the task is not ducked. The rights of the unemployed to work must be placed firmly above the protections of the already employed.'
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... -work.html
Jeff
The delusions of X Factor and sneering job snobs who betray the young - by Iain Duncan-Smith
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1mzf0UAir
'13 weeks after starting their placements, around 50 per cent of those taking part have either taken up permanent posts or have stopped claiming benefits'.
'Out of around 1,400 individuals who have taken part in the Work Experience placement at Tesco, more than 300 have been taken on in permanent roles with the supermarket'.
Jeff
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1mzf0UAir
'13 weeks after starting their placements, around 50 per cent of those taking part have either taken up permanent posts or have stopped claiming benefits'.
'Out of around 1,400 individuals who have taken part in the Work Experience placement at Tesco, more than 300 have been taken on in permanent roles with the supermarket'.
Jeff
-
mister man
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm
well said to75ne, at last a voice of reason on here.
well done sir, and keep fighting the good fight, this injustice really is quite sickening, and frightening in the way many are duped by the modern biased media telling them that the unemployed are lazy feckless and deserve to be poor, when even the briefest look at the most basic figures of 2.7M unemployed (officially. thats a joke figure too) and only 0.5M jobs.Thats 2.2M with no choice, and as you say those rich and smug in their indignation at having to hand out poverty level benefits to the poor and desperate (in the main, yes a few exceptions work the system but for most especially single men the benefit levels are at government figures 40% below the poverty line) these same sneering, comfortable and uncaring benefit bashers are many of the ones who should be suffering for causing the problems by their greed and mis management, the others who go along with them are sadly ignorant idiots or worse. Great stuff "to75ne".
well done sir, and keep fighting the good fight, this injustice really is quite sickening, and frightening in the way many are duped by the modern biased media telling them that the unemployed are lazy feckless and deserve to be poor, when even the briefest look at the most basic figures of 2.7M unemployed (officially. thats a joke figure too) and only 0.5M jobs.Thats 2.2M with no choice, and as you say those rich and smug in their indignation at having to hand out poverty level benefits to the poor and desperate (in the main, yes a few exceptions work the system but for most especially single men the benefit levels are at government figures 40% below the poverty line) these same sneering, comfortable and uncaring benefit bashers are many of the ones who should be suffering for causing the problems by their greed and mis management, the others who go along with them are sadly ignorant idiots or worse. Great stuff "to75ne".
It is important to provide basis level of benefit & housing for poorest of its citizens, welfare system in the UK is slightly distorted and once you get state help it is hard to come out of government support system by the way how unemployment benefit, tax credit, income support, disability allowance and housing system work.
I would urge anyone not to rely on any of these type of benefits if you can help it as its like an event horizon. I know a person who was made redundant in the late 90s and started claiming benefit whilst looking for an alternative employment which wasn't forth coming and because he had family unemployment benefit, income support,tax credits receives it doesn't make economic sense to get a job. But he doesn't realise that realise that he is compromising his kids future by leaving in area that's not really suitable, provide no role model, cannot instill work ethics, lacking in education mean can't provide adequate education & learning so that they use that to get out of the track etc.
Because welfare system is not really aligned people at the bottom of the rung do not have incentive to get a job as office clearner, taxi driver, street cleaner, farm worker, fruit picker, sewage clearner etc. and these type of employment can only be filled by relying of immigrant community but then this breeds anti-immigration sentiment especially by very people who refuse to do jobs that these immigrant do and contribute to economic development.
So the UK's welfare system does need some serious reform but whilst we get annoyed by people who rely on state to look after their welfare, we forget that its the unsustainable level of PENSION payments that the government makes and promises that's the biggest DANGER that's facing the country.
The UK government pays 18% of the total expenditure on pensions and its far the biggest slice of the pie and bigger than education, defence, welfare and even NHS.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total ... g_2011UKmn
And I have a strong feeling that millions of government retireers on gold plated pension scheme, with retiring way ahead of private sector workers, do not even need such generous provision but we provide it and saddle future generation with debt that likely to grow a stage where greece like situation is not unimaginable.
I would urge anyone not to rely on any of these type of benefits if you can help it as its like an event horizon. I know a person who was made redundant in the late 90s and started claiming benefit whilst looking for an alternative employment which wasn't forth coming and because he had family unemployment benefit, income support,tax credits receives it doesn't make economic sense to get a job. But he doesn't realise that realise that he is compromising his kids future by leaving in area that's not really suitable, provide no role model, cannot instill work ethics, lacking in education mean can't provide adequate education & learning so that they use that to get out of the track etc.
Because welfare system is not really aligned people at the bottom of the rung do not have incentive to get a job as office clearner, taxi driver, street cleaner, farm worker, fruit picker, sewage clearner etc. and these type of employment can only be filled by relying of immigrant community but then this breeds anti-immigration sentiment especially by very people who refuse to do jobs that these immigrant do and contribute to economic development.
So the UK's welfare system does need some serious reform but whilst we get annoyed by people who rely on state to look after their welfare, we forget that its the unsustainable level of PENSION payments that the government makes and promises that's the biggest DANGER that's facing the country.
The UK government pays 18% of the total expenditure on pensions and its far the biggest slice of the pie and bigger than education, defence, welfare and even NHS.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total ... g_2011UKmn
And I have a strong feeling that millions of government retireers on gold plated pension scheme, with retiring way ahead of private sector workers, do not even need such generous provision but we provide it and saddle future generation with debt that likely to grow a stage where greece like situation is not unimaginable.