UK Wants Unemployed Youth to Do Unpaid Work for the State. State Sponsored Slavery or.....?

a reply to: HarryJoy

HarryJoy these forced work related programs are already taking place. Have been now for around 5 years. The only difference being our government rename the schemes year after year under a new title. And there is indeed money to be made, money for the corporations and big businesses involved that utilise such forced labour. Why pay some poor sod the minimum wage when you can get 10 other ever poorer souls to do the job for a token sum?

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes my friend I am sure the things you say are true and for me it is a new low for government/industry. But the system that I described is the system that you will never see implemented...because it would only cause us as a society to be less dependent on the current money making system.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: HarryJoy

HarryJoy these forced work related programs are already taking place. Have been now for around 5 years. The only difference being our government rename the schemes year after year under a new title. And there is indeed money to be made, money for the corporations and big businesses involved that utilise such forced labour. Why pay some poor sod the minimum wage when you can get 10 other ever poorer souls to do the job for a token sum?

Try 15 to 20 years, maybe even more. It was at least 15 years ago that I was planting trees for my dole money.

a reply to: Aspie

15-20 years ago the Job centre lackeys were not forcing the same people to apply for 40+ jobs a week, that they will never even get a response from.

15-20 years ago Job centres were not told to apply sanctions to peoples benefit for the slightest infraction.

15-20 years ago it was in impossibility to have 70% of your benefit sanctioned. And if you benefits were sanctioned you could apply for the hardship social-fund that generally restored the balance.

15-20 years ago there were not any food banks(In our supposed first world nation) being utilised by not only the unemployed and destitute but also a significant percentage of people in low paid employment

I know this because i was unemployed 15-20 years ago and even then there were no decent jobs available to apply for in our job centres.

I done my YTS apprenticeship in Electronic and Electrical Engineering back then and that was complete financial nightmare. £34 pounds a week was the pay if memory serves.

Some UK Council's have recently announced that after April this year they will no longer be able to uplift street litter due to cutbacks in the money they get from Central Government. I wonder if this is why the Govt is introducing this requirement to work for benefits ?

We supposedly pay taxes which help towards financial assistance if we fall on hard times
These benefits such as Housing and living needs are money given from that we as a whole contributed to
It is law

Some who never work are unable to for various reasons ... and are supported by the majority

However the number of jobs available ... measured against the numbers unemployed do not equal out
When one receives living expenses in the form of social welfare one enters into a contract to actively seek employment and also to prove that

If the work in question is to benefit the society fine so long as enough time is given to also look for payed work or indeed set up a business
If the work in question is to benefit private company's with free labour then it is plainly wrong

As a side swipe ... If those too big to touch company's paid their taxes then we would all be a lot better off ...except for the company's of course

It is becoming a dog eat dog eat dog world ... where the poor and unfortunate are scape-goated ... while the big fish get away

a reply to: getso

Some UK Council's have recently announced that after April this year they will no longer be able to uplift street litter due to cutbacks

Then maybe the Bankers who created this mess should be made to clean it up

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: getso

Some UK Council's have recently announced that after April this year they will no longer be able to uplift street litter due to cutbacks

Then maybe the Bankers who created this mess should be made to clean it up

now we are getting somewhere.

Yes I agree the bankers are too blame for a lot of things, but they don't force lazy people to sit on their arses all of their lives living on handouts.

a reply to: Aspie

lazy people to sit on their arses all of their lives living on handouts.

Speaking of hand outs
These are the figures for the amount of money dropped into the Bankers Begging Bowl

£500 billion given to UK Banks

£67 billion paid out in financial sector bonuses since the crash

seems fair WTF

originally posted by: Aspie
Yes I agree the bankers are too blame for a lot of things, but they don't force lazy people to sit on their arses all of their lives living on handouts.

No, they force you and me to pay for their crimes with cold hard cash, or lack of....
This country in in debt to the tune of 1.4 trillion because of the Bastards and what do we do...we give them even bigger bonuses and a get out of jail free card.

I like the way everyone is assuming this work for dole means a 9-5, 5 day a week full time job - it doesnt.

People who have been out of work for years have forgotten HOW two actually turn up at a time and do *some* kind of work, adding to the challenge of actually getting a real job.

However low paid a job might be or low hours available its always more than the basic dole would be, and thats the point of this, do very little and get very little or get a real job for more cash. Seems pretty straight forward, its not slave labor THEY ARE GETTING FREE MONEYif they get dole and do nothing but AVOID getting other work.

a reply to: Biigs

But its not free money if they are made to work for it. And if they are after all working the minimum wage should apply to those in question just like it does ever one else.

One also has to imagine how this 30 hours of forced labour will impact any attempt to gain further employment(a real job)? Considering they cannot actively seek work while carrying out the prescribed hours by our government.

Seems like an untenable situation if ever there was one.

originally posted by: Biigs
I like the way everyone is assuming this work for dole means a 9-5, 5 day a week full time job - it doesnt.

.

Yes it does and in retail Saturdays are included...

a reply to: Mister_Bit

Income support as a stand alone is not a huge amount, but it is unusual to be on this alone. Most who are on it are eligible (and claim) other benefits such as housing benefit, job seekers etc. These all add up. There are a raft of schemes for those out of work.

For example last year I was saving to make improvements to my kitchen. It was a mess and needed gutting so I took a part time second job to save for it. Yet the people who were on income support near me were bitching about the colour of the new kitchens they were getting installed for free by the council as upgrades in their fully paid for houses. It's a bit of a boot in the nuts having to graft to save for something when there are people using MY money to get the same for free.

I don't care how much it is or what percentage it takes. It is MY money that I earn. Using someone else's hard earned money because you don't want to earn it yourself is wrong. Simple as that.

originally posted by: Aspie
Yes I agree the bankers are too blame for a lot of things, but they don't force lazy people to sit on their arses all of their lives living on handouts.

I worked in a job for years, the company I worked for was bought and sold by an assest stripping company. They closed the business and made us all unemployed. I worked 60 hours a week and ended up claiming benefit.

Stand in front of me and tell me I am lazy and sit on my arse and I'll put you on yours....

originally posted by: PaddyInf
a reply to: Mister_Bit

Income support as a stand alone is not a huge amount, but it is unusual to be on this alone. Most who are on it are eligible (and claim) other benefits such as housing benefit, job seekers etc. These all add up. There are a raft of schemes for those out of work.

For example last year I was saving to make improvements to my kitchen. It was a mess and needed gutting so I took a part time second job to save for it. Yet the people who were on income support near me were bitching about the colour of the new kitchens they were getting installed for free by the council as upgrades in their fully paid for houses. It's a bit of a boot in the nuts having to graft to save for something when there are people using MY money to get the same for free.

I don't care how much it is or what percentage it takes. It is MY money that I earn. Using someone else's hard earned money because you don't want to earn it yourself is wrong. Simple as that.

For those that abuse the system I agree totally, but there seems to be a blanket statement that everyone on benefit is a slacker.

See my previous post about my company being closed down.

a reply to: Mister_Bit

If you look at most of my previous posts you'll see that I fully support providing support to those in genuine need. It's the ones who CHOOSE not to work as a lifestyle that I (and I suspect most others) have issue with.

a reply to: Mister_Bit

I dont know your age or your current circumstance mate but keep your chin up! A very similar situation happened to my Dad, worked for a company for 15 years as a master carpenter, company went the way of the dinosaur at the end of the 90s.

My Dad was about 50 at the time and could not for the life of him find alternative employment. Mortgage payments and other associated bills begun to get out of hand and the result was our family home had to be sold to one of these home consolidation company's. The alternative would have been reposition and my parents made homeless.

There is a modicum of light at the end of the tunnel(if you can call it that). Around 2002 he managed to find employment at a parcel delivery company, loading trucks. So now he will end out his working days doing a job that's pretty much killing him, certainly well beneath his skill set, but he did manage to find other employment.

Best of luck buddy!

This was discussed at length in my household as in principle I am for it.

Obviously using huge generalisations, at lot of the UK youth have not had a stable home life, encouragement, love, emotional support and find looking for a job hard, as although they may have had opportunities in front of them they may not have had the self esteem or belief to think they could do it. If this new way of exposing them to a work life gives them self esteem, a reason to get up in the morning, they meet new people and gain a positive outlook on themselves and what life could be like then all good!

In an ideal world, they would go to this workplace, learn skills to put on their CV, and maybe exposed to a sector they wouldn't have been able to see, after a while, the employer would go either, 'hey your great, we will employ you' or 'goodbye, but you've learnt something of yourself and something to put on your CV'.

However, we aren't in an ideal world. Why would a business employ someone at a job, knowing they are only temporary, and behind this one person, is a line of people that could take their place for free? The statistics will change, however, more people will be out of work. As business can employ temporary people for free. It is the same as a zero hour contract debacle all over again.

Just warping it on paper to look better, but making the reality worse.

All for apprenticeships, they work and have done for years. We just need more of them. But again will these die as now they can get people to do it for free?