I've had an idea.
Discussion
Which may be a good or bad thing depending...it's the beginning of my weekend so ahhm ont booze.
Doleys. We all hate 'um. I used to be a doley, for three loooong months and to tell you the truth I hated any minute of it. If the Jobcentre had come along and said "Yeah, we'll give you benefits, but you've got to work for it" I would not have objected. Not one little bit.
Now obviously the concept of the jobcentre monkeys organising that sort of thing is absolutely laughable, not to mention the insurance implications (and associated...) which would make the thing a whole lot more costly.
So why not get local businesses involved? If the jobcentre approached me (As a current business owner) and said "Hey Mr WVM88, would you like someone to work for you? We'll pay 50% (or so) of their wages..." I'd jump at the chance. Seriously. And I would have jumped at the chance to be in work like that when I was ont' dole.
Now, I'm sure you're thinking 'Hold up chap, most of the people on benefits don't want to work and would do a s
t job' - but that's the wonderful thing. Anyone that is on the dole 'cause they can would be deterred. And also, if anyone fked about in my shop they'd be ahhht (as three of my ex-employees will testify).
Thoughts?
Doleys. We all hate 'um. I used to be a doley, for three loooong months and to tell you the truth I hated any minute of it. If the Jobcentre had come along and said "Yeah, we'll give you benefits, but you've got to work for it" I would not have objected. Not one little bit.
Now obviously the concept of the jobcentre monkeys organising that sort of thing is absolutely laughable, not to mention the insurance implications (and associated...) which would make the thing a whole lot more costly.
So why not get local businesses involved? If the jobcentre approached me (As a current business owner) and said "Hey Mr WVM88, would you like someone to work for you? We'll pay 50% (or so) of their wages..." I'd jump at the chance. Seriously. And I would have jumped at the chance to be in work like that when I was ont' dole.
Now, I'm sure you're thinking 'Hold up chap, most of the people on benefits don't want to work and would do a s
t job' - but that's the wonderful thing. Anyone that is on the dole 'cause they can would be deterred. And also, if anyone fked about in my shop they'd be ahhht (as three of my ex-employees will testify).Thoughts?
Well, I think something along these sort of lines would be a good idea, there needs to be a mixture of carrot dangling and stick waving. I've always thought that people should be made to do something constructive in return for their benefits. The government seem to be making noises on benefit reform but the detail seems to be a bit thin at the moment.
The raising of the tax allowance is a good way to boost low income wages and make it viable for people to get off benefits, in conjunction with other schemes this could have a positive effect too.
The raising of the tax allowance is a good way to boost low income wages and make it viable for people to get off benefits, in conjunction with other schemes this could have a positive effect too.
There are already schemes of this sort running. I've had two people (one working for each business) from one run on Merseyside.
My impression was that the people who are sent out, tend to be the people who are unfortunately unemployable, out of our two one was a Frank Gallagher look and act alike (if I'd wanted a pissed up wker working for me, I'd have offered my father a job!) and the other had to go at the end of the first week after a customer complained that he'd told them to fk off and stop moaning and a few bits had gone missing from one of the tool boxes.
My impression was that the people who are sent out, tend to be the people who are unfortunately unemployable, out of our two one was a Frank Gallagher look and act alike (if I'd wanted a pissed up w
ker working for me, I'd have offered my father a job!) and the other had to go at the end of the first week after a customer complained that he'd told them to fk off and stop moaning and a few bits had gone missing from one of the tool boxes.Edited by AndrewW-G on Thursday 27th May 21:25
Deva Link said:
So the tax payer should subsidise some business's employees? Hmmm.
What I do think fit, unemployed, people could usefully do is to tidy up the scruffy estates they usually live on.
Please read my first post properly.What I do think fit, unemployed, people could usefully do is to tidy up the scruffy estates they usually live on.
Currently we're subsiding the t
ts 100%...yes? Any reduction in that is good, yes?The PH massive has already dismissed ideas of making you work for benefits on insurance grounds. This is at least a halfway house that *might* work.
Edited by whitevanman88 on Thursday 27th May 23:04
Agree with the principle, but the problem is that if you have someone working for you who is effectively part-subsidised, why would you ever pay full price for that labour?
You would need some pretty effective regulations otherwise you'd find a huge number of legitimate jobs being part funded this way, for no good reason.
Governments are pretty poor at effective regulations I have noticed.
I'm sure the best answer is for councils to use them for free hour for 20-30 hours a week, picking up litter, cutting the grass, whatever, so long as they're earning their keep.
You would need some pretty effective regulations otherwise you'd find a huge number of legitimate jobs being part funded this way, for no good reason.
Governments are pretty poor at effective regulations I have noticed.
I'm sure the best answer is for councils to use them for free hour for 20-30 hours a week, picking up litter, cutting the grass, whatever, so long as they're earning their keep.
paulrockliffe said:
I'm sure the best answer is for councils to use them for free hour for 20-30 hours a week, picking up litter, cutting the grass, whatever, so long as they're earning their keep.
Again, the insurance implications as well as other implications will ensure that this will cost more than giving them the dole.Give companies a subsidy - those who get on will get proper employment - those who don't will end up with no benefits.
I'm not saying subsidise them forever.
whitevanman88 said:
paulrockliffe said:
I'm sure the best answer is for councils to use them for free hour for 20-30 hours a week, picking up litter, cutting the grass, whatever, so long as they're earning their keep.
Again, the insurance implications as well as other implications will ensure that this will cost more than giving them the dole.I'm sure some employers would use the system you suggest well, but I suspect that many would finish up the unemployed person as soon as the subsidy stopped.
There is always migration to here (Foxconn in China) !?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Deva Link said:
Tony*T3 said:
"It's not worth me taking a job when I'm better off on benifits"...... ur, no, sorry, we can change that simply.
Considering benefits are supposed to be the bare minimum, then perhaps people who are working don't get paid enough?Heard on the tele yesterday something interesting. The 'benifits class' think that anyone earning under £20k a year must be really stupid becuase with a little effort you can 'earn' this in benifits if your switched on. So their defintition of stupid is someone trying to earn a living.
Put it this way, I know a family that currently claim substantial state help. 'She' has never worked, and has 'debilitating back' issues. 'He' has worked but has now stopped, claiming PTSD from the Falklands conflict. They still go on all inclusive holidays twice a year. This last year, Ls Vegas and Mexico.
With no significant earned income, they have a better life style us, and we work hard. (ish) My wife and I pay over £2500 in tax every month. They contribute fek all as far as I'm aware.
Oh, and he was on a ship in the Falklands, it wasnt hit or sunk, but apparantly thats enough for him to claim against the state.
Her bad back doesnt stop her doing all the things you do on holiday. You know, scuba, paragliding, horse riding etc.
Edited by Tony*T3 on Friday 28th May 10:22
Should do as in Switzerland! my idea is for 10 days a month you report to the local labour office who then send you to the scaffies den, where you will be issued with a warning jacket, broom and/or bucket and sent out to clean pavements, pick-up litter, or even look after the flower beds. Refuse and dole gets stopped
whitevanman88 said:
Now, I'm sure you're thinking 'Hold up chap, most of the people on benefits don't want to work and would do a st job'
In my experience the opposite is true, only a small proportion are like this. Not newsworthy for the tabloid press though, which is how the opposite impression remains prevalent.t job' Tony*T3 said:
Thing is though, people that can play the system can coin in all sorts of payments. It soon adds up so that anything under a half decent wage isn't worth them taking.
Heard on the tele yesterday something interesting. The 'benifits class' think that anyone earning under £20k a year must be really stupid becuase with a little effort you can 'earn' this in benifits if your switched on. So their defintition of stupid is someone trying to earn a living.
Put it this way, I know a family that currently claim substantial state help. 'She' has never worked, and has 'debilitating back' issues. 'He' has worked but has now stopped, claiming PTSD from the Falklands conflict. They still go on all inclusive holidays twice a year. This last year, Ls Vegas and Mexico.
With no significant earned income, they have a better life style us, and we work hard. (ish) My wife and I pay over £2500 in tax every month. They contribute fek all as far as I'm aware.
Oh, and he was on a ship in the Falklands, it wasnt hit or sunk, but apparantly thats enough for him to claim against the state.
Her bad back doesnt stop her doing all the things you do on holiday. You know, scuba, paragliding, horse riding etc.
Must admit that I really don't understand how this happens - did he get a compensation payment for his PTSD? Heard on the tele yesterday something interesting. The 'benifits class' think that anyone earning under £20k a year must be really stupid becuase with a little effort you can 'earn' this in benifits if your switched on. So their defintition of stupid is someone trying to earn a living.
Put it this way, I know a family that currently claim substantial state help. 'She' has never worked, and has 'debilitating back' issues. 'He' has worked but has now stopped, claiming PTSD from the Falklands conflict. They still go on all inclusive holidays twice a year. This last year, Ls Vegas and Mexico.
With no significant earned income, they have a better life style us, and we work hard. (ish) My wife and I pay over £2500 in tax every month. They contribute fek all as far as I'm aware.
Oh, and he was on a ship in the Falklands, it wasnt hit or sunk, but apparantly thats enough for him to claim against the state.
Her bad back doesnt stop her doing all the things you do on holiday. You know, scuba, paragliding, horse riding etc.
Knowing how much those sorts of holidays cost I'm seriously dubious that even the most expert benefits scammer could fund a couple of trips per year like that.
Deva Link said:
Tony*T3 said:
Thing is though, people that can play the system can coin in all sorts of payments. It soon adds up so that anything under a half decent wage isn't worth them taking.
Heard on the tele yesterday something interesting. The 'benifits class' think that anyone earning under £20k a year must be really stupid becuase with a little effort you can 'earn' this in benifits if your switched on. So their defintition of stupid is someone trying to earn a living.
Put it this way, I know a family that currently claim substantial state help. 'She' has never worked, and has 'debilitating back' issues. 'He' has worked but has now stopped, claiming PTSD from the Falklands conflict. They still go on all inclusive holidays twice a year. This last year, Ls Vegas and Mexico.
With no significant earned income, they have a better life style us, and we work hard. (ish) My wife and I pay over £2500 in tax every month. They contribute fek all as far as I'm aware.
Oh, and he was on a ship in the Falklands, it wasnt hit or sunk, but apparantly thats enough for him to claim against the state.
Her bad back doesnt stop her doing all the things you do on holiday. You know, scuba, paragliding, horse riding etc.
Must admit that I really don't understand how this happens - did he get a compensation payment for his PTSD? Heard on the tele yesterday something interesting. The 'benifits class' think that anyone earning under £20k a year must be really stupid becuase with a little effort you can 'earn' this in benifits if your switched on. So their defintition of stupid is someone trying to earn a living.
Put it this way, I know a family that currently claim substantial state help. 'She' has never worked, and has 'debilitating back' issues. 'He' has worked but has now stopped, claiming PTSD from the Falklands conflict. They still go on all inclusive holidays twice a year. This last year, Ls Vegas and Mexico.
With no significant earned income, they have a better life style us, and we work hard. (ish) My wife and I pay over £2500 in tax every month. They contribute fek all as far as I'm aware.
Oh, and he was on a ship in the Falklands, it wasnt hit or sunk, but apparantly thats enough for him to claim against the state.
Her bad back doesnt stop her doing all the things you do on holiday. You know, scuba, paragliding, horse riding etc.
Knowing how much those sorts of holidays cost I'm seriously dubious that even the most expert benefits scammer could fund a couple of trips per year like that.
Funny, you would never have been able to tell.
But now theres a law suite in the offing, I guess some friendly pshycologist will be agreeing that everythings someone elses fault.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff