It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jobless to work 'clearing litter'

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Please note that in this post I'm discussing specifically the system as it exists in the USA, since that's the only one I'm familiar with.

Unemployment and welfare (TANF) are two totally different things. Unemployment is not really a benefit at all, it's insurance that your employer has paid for, and it's no different than your car insurance, home insurance, or health insurance. The premium was paid, and you shouldn't have to 'pay' again to receive the payout when you suffer a loss.

Welfare, on the other hand, is paid out of working citizens' taxes. I don't believe that 'most' people on welfare can't work. If they have a disability they should (would) be on disability, not welfare.

A while back I worked as a teacher for an after school enrichment program, teaching computer skills in one of the 'worst' middle schools in our area. One of my students had no interest in learning anything and refused to do even the simplest lesson. Finally one day I asked him "What do you think you're going to do when you grow up if you don't have any computer skills? These days you have to be able to use a computer to do just about any job, even fast food or a shelf stocker." His reply, slightly paraphrased because I don't remember his exact words, was "Welfare's been good enough for my grandparents and my parents, I reckon it'll be good enough for me, too."


Yep, they're out there. Many women receive welfare because they are single mothers and can't get a job that pays enough money for them to be able to afford daycare. And, of course, they keep having more kids ... But that's another subject.

I seriously do have an objection to people being paid to lounge around and watch TV all day with MY (and your, if you're in the US) tax money. I darn tootin' think they should have to work for that money, and I've been saying it for years. If they had to work to get that welfare check, maybe they'd go get a real job, instead. Maybe they would take some of those jobs that most Americans seem to think they're "too good" to do and are therefore filled by illegal immigrants.

And as for the single mothers, pick one out of every four and send them to child care classes and make them provide daycare so the other three can go to work. It wouldn't cost that much even when you figure in the oversight and administrative costs, and it would put 75% of them back in the workforce and off the free dole.

I don't agree that people receiving payout from unemployment insurance should have to work for it, but making able people on welfare work is something I've been in favor of (and somewhat vocal about) for many years.




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
When you are on the system, and often this is mothers with small children I might add, or non-employables. Disabled people are a separate group as they are also non-employable, and may work if they can or chose, which often is short time for them. For those who are employable and on the system, they need to work at getting a job, and this is one way to ensure they can't do that. Being unemployed means you spend many hours seeking employment, and you don't need future employees to catch sight of you doing forced garbage pickup, because you need to keep your image good to even seek employment. Do remember the world you allow created, you and your children have to live in, and all circumstances can change for anyone.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
IM THINKING WHY BOTHER PAYING COUNCIL EMPLOYES HUNDREDS OF POUNDS A WEEK TO CLEAN OUR STREETS WHEN YOU CAN GET UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE TO DO IT FOR £33....WHERES THE MINIMUM WAGE...sorry for the caps as it angers me ...



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
1. in the UK we have a "benefits culture" which is crippling this country. Encouraging people to get jobs by not allowing them to sit around on their fat arses all day #ing and drinking to produce more retarded offspring like themselves is a Damn Good Thing.


1. in the UK we have never had it so good with unemployment figures at an all time low, link provided
politics.co.uk
secondly in quoting your post the expletive you used is NOT censored!
Could mods please do something about that, why is this imbecile allowed to circumvent the censors?



Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

2. This is in no way akin to slave labour. This is an opportunity to get some money if they have no money. It is just they will not get it for free. This is a mindset that has too-long been accepted as okay, which it is not. They have the complete and utter freedom to either get a job or just not get paid, which seems perfectly fair to me.



2. This IS slave labour, they do not have the oppurtunity to get 'some money' it is an oppurtunity to remain poor as they cannot seek alternative employment/training if they work full time for their benefits, (working tax credit/housing ben/council tax ben) are benefits, essentially the government are cooking the books for pre-election popularity.



Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

3. Police state? What kind of planet do you live on? This isn't about controlling their lives, this is about showing that we won't subsidise a lavish lazy lifestyle! This is to give them motivation to get a damn job and contribute to society, and stop being leeches.


3. A lavish lifestyle? on benefits? what planet are you living on kind sir?
You talk of leeches, let me tell you something, i worked temporarily for the local county council for about 18 months....you know the place? where nearly 70% of your taxes goto!
Whilst there i 'leeched' more money from that pot that i wasn't entitled to than i ever claimed for 12 months on benefits, why? because i HAD TO, the team i worked with who were already there and established before i got there were ALL on the fiddle, so when filling in my time sheet everyone checked to make sure they all tallied or else it would expose the ones who WANTED to fiddle the system.
And that bear in mind was at 'grease monkey' level, so imagine what the higher ups management/councillors were taking undeservedley!?!!?....the mind boggles.
So you want to talk about 'leeches' then talk about your own local government!!!


So in effect what we have here is a room with three pigs in, a large pig, a medium pig and a small pig, and the medium pig is blaming the SMALL pig for taking up too much room!!!
Yep that's sound logic right there!

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Ah_Pook]

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Ah_Pook]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by fatdad
IM THINKING WHY BOTHER PAYING COUNCIL EMPLOYES HUNDREDS OF POUNDS A WEEK TO CLEAN OUR STREETS WHEN YOU CAN GET UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE TO DO IT FOR £33....WHERES THE MINIMUM WAGE...sorry for the caps as it angers me ...



Why should we pay anyone to clean the streets? Are we really so stupid that'd we're incapable of putting litter in a bin or taking it home with us for proper disposal?


Besides, if we didn't have to pay council employees to clean the streets it's mean lower council tax
Looks like win win to me



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
What i want to know is whether they will be paying the minimum wage for this or will they expect people to work a 40 hour week for about £65 pounds or so?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by fatdad
IM THINKING WHY BOTHER PAYING COUNCIL EMPLOYES HUNDREDS OF POUNDS A WEEK TO CLEAN OUR STREETS WHEN YOU CAN GET UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE TO DO IT FOR £33....WHERES THE MINIMUM WAGE...sorry for the caps as it angers me ...



Why should we pay anyone to clean the streets? Are we really so stupid that'd we're incapable of putting litter in a bin or taking it home with us for proper disposal?


Besides, if we didn't have to pay council employees to clean the streets it's mean lower council tax
Looks like win win to me


LOL do you really think they will lower council tax.

We are already sorting out recyclable materials for them, something which our tax went on previously.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
OMG! This is terrible! It's a great idea, and I agree with it completely, but.... I agree with C.C.Benjamin!


Seriously...
What amazes me is that so many people are opposed to this! Have we come so far from reality that we think work gets done by itself? One of the great things Fob James did as Alabama Governor was to bring back the chain gangs to clean up the side of the roads. It beats the devil out of making me help pay for state workers to do the same thing at $15/hr. while criminals set on their lazy butts in jail and get three squares a day.

It's a simple concept, folks. People who are on unemployment for two years have to start putting something back into the system to pay for what they're getting out of it: 4 weeks community service each year. After four years, they get to work full-time, or they can always get off unemployment. Those disabled have to get an OK from someone besides their regular doctor. Now what's wrong with that?

As I see it, the only way someone could possibly be against this would be for them to either believe that they should be paid for doing absolutely nothing by those 'evil' people who someone said were 'rich', or they have absolutely no concept of reality and think fairies show up in the middle of the night to do all of our work.

Get real, folks. If you don't work (and you can work), you shouldn't eat. Unemployment is intended to be a subsistence allowance to let you get another job without starving in the meantime, not an extended vacation at someone else's expense.

I just wish we could do this in the US...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I cannot believe the speed with which Britain has descended into a fascist police state.

They have become an Orwellian wonderland, where the Constitution and Magna Carta are dismissed by the Ruling elite- with the masses being made ignorant of their importance.

"Stop and Account"
"Garbage Bin Inspector"
"DNA Swabbist" (for spittle)
"Random Stop and Search" - Follows "Stop and account"
"Free Speech Zones"
"Protest Permits"
None of these can coexist in a Society that is Constitutional. These polices and jobs Cannot coexist with "Freedom of Movement" & "The Right to Be Secure in You Home and Person" and "Right to Remain Silent" and "Freedom of Speech"

I only wish the English people had the fortitude to the Resist this Orwellian Nightmare.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Well since you are no longer "allowed" to Hunt or Fish in order to feed yourself as a way of subsistence, the Government should not also be allowed to force them to work - especially for what amounts to some forty percent less of what the wage is for a city worker who picks up garbage.

It is a $25 000 fine for cutting down a maple tree on the Kings land Here in Canada - I mean on the Government land (that we stole from the Natives) - even if it is the dead of winter and you are trying to stop your children from freezing because you can't afford to pay your heating bills because you are only getting minimum wage etc.... They'll be chopping hands off soon.

Further more since these people will now be Government Employees they now deserve the benefits that other such workers Receive.

We mustn't penalize people just because their Governments Policies forced all of the non-tertiary, non-service, non-government jobs to Asia, South America and Mexico. They taxed the companies and over-regulated and the companies left and the jobs went too. Why should we further punish those who you have put at a disadvantage? Perhaps as an excellent source of cheap labour you pay just enough so that they can Eat but not acquire residence?
Perhaps they will build camps for these workers to stay in - as they won't be earning enough to get place of their own and still put food in their bellies.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by TruthTellist]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I would think the people in the UK would have had enough government regulation as it is. They've taken away your right to defend yourself by banning firearm ownership, with pointy objects being the next thing on their list.

Now they want to send unemployed young people between the ages of 18 to 21 to work camps, and force people who receive welfare or disability benefits to work picking up trash and scrubbing graffiti off walls. Disability benefits will be a thing of the past.

It probably sounds like a good thing to those who are able-bodied and employed, but just hope you never lose your job or become disabled. If you do, it sounds like you'll work for the state or die..



[edit on 21-7-2008 by LLoyd45]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by fatdad
IM THINKING WHY BOTHER PAYING COUNCIL EMPLOYES HUNDREDS OF POUNDS A WEEK TO CLEAN OUR STREETS WHEN YOU CAN GET UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE TO DO IT FOR £33....WHERES THE MINIMUM WAGE...sorry for the caps as it angers me ...


Actually, the quickest way to make trash removal cheaper is to privatize it. Let a bunch of companies compete for it... you'll see the value of garbage pickers drop pretty quickly... only, they won't dare get lazy at it, cause now they really can get fired.

We've had a similar argument here in Canada for some time. With the snow removal teams being unionized AND government employees... they've gotten rather lazy. Best solution I can think of is to privatize the snow removal.

And no, before any brothers to the south start up with their propaganda, we're not socialist. You'll find your own municipal governments tend to do the same.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthTellist

Well since you are no longer "allowed" to Hunt or Fish in order to feed yourself as a way of subsistence, the Government should not also be allowed to force them to work - especially for what amounts to some forty percent less of what the wage is for a city worker who picks up garbage.


You're talking apples and oranges here. Of course people should be allowed to hunt and fish (I also think that reasonable restrictions on how many critters are taken are fine), because they are not restricting others in order to do so. If you take a gun and shoot a deer legally, within those reasonable limits I spoke of, you are not requiring anyone else to pay for your activity and you are not infringing on anyone else's right to hunt deer.

When you get laid off a job, and you sit on your butt waiting for another identical job to open up on your schedule, all the while drawing money from the state, you are asking someone else to support you. You could always start a business, find a job elsewhere and move, or even re-train and change jobs. There are always possibilities. I have had to do all three in my life. Are you so much better than I? I personally find even having to ask that question offensive.


Further more since these people will now be Government Employees they now deserve the benefits that other such workers Receive.


No, they are not employees. They are recipients of governmental charity. Are you telling me that working four weeks for a year of unemployment benefits is less than adequate compensation?

That's after two years of receiving benefits without hitting a lick at a snake. And only if you have been able to work but have not found a job after four years are you required to work full-time for your benefits. If you haven't found something to do in four years, I'm sorry, you're a bum and need something to make you get off your sorry hind end.


We mustn't penalize people just because their Governments Policies forced all of the non-tertiary, non-service, non-government jobs to Asia, South America and Mexico. They taxed the companies and over-regulated and the companies left and the jobs went too. Why should we further punish those who you have put at a disadvantage? Perhaps as an excellent source of cheap labour you pay just enough so that they can Eat but not acquire residence?
Perhaps they will build camps for these workers to stay in - as they won't be earning enough to get place of their own and still put food in their bellies.


The government cannot do these things without the (usually silent) approval of the masses. Yes, you are right, we have allowed our governments to place us, the people, in some pretty rough situations. But we allowed it, by trying to turn national elections into some sort of popularity based sporting event, by not watching what these politicians are doing to us the rest of the time, and by simply being too busy with our own personal little lives and ignoring what is happening around us.

But just because our government has let us down, that does not mean that everything they do is evil. This is one good idea that will help society probably among thousands that will increase everyone's suffering. We will never reclaim our freedoms if we oppose the good ideas and ignore the bad ones. That is simply irrational thinking.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Yeah! Bring it on in the U.S.!

I know I am going to get slammed for this, but I have thought this for a long time. You need assistance? Fine, there are people who get behind the power curve and need a bit of help--for a period of time. Food, clothing, shelter, job assistance, and after that, if you haven't got it together,(Still living in a Katrina trailer?) or can't get it together, you should go on some kind of work detail and become a ward of the State. Got a baby and no skills? Strap that babe on your back and push a mop. Thousands around the world work like that. It won't hurt you. Too mentally deficient? If you can shake a can of money in my face and beg from me, you can take a scrub brush and clean buildings and sidewalks (The nasty Houston Metro train and train stops come to mind. Those suckers could be sparkling!) You can empty and change trash bags. You can pick up cigarette butts, and mow grass. Yes, you can. When the day is done, for those who have this as a permanent situation, you can ride the special transportation back to the apartments that will be built for you. They won't be pretty, but functional, and you won't be living under a bridge. Pay? Basically room and board, three squares/day, with a bit of spending money.

Of course there are people who can't work, and they should be helped. I saw a guy begging on the side of a road the other day with a "halo" (look up orthopedic halo appliance) bolted into his head. He had a genuine need!

If you think everybody wants to work, think again. I have worked in places where I handed applications to people who told me they didn't want the job, they just needed to turn in an application to keep getting their unemployment check.

Have I ever been so down and out that I would have worked like this? Yes, I would. I had a whole series of events happen to me a few years ago that almost put me on the street. I would have happily cleaned brush out of a ditch, if I had to, to pull myself up out of the situation.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
This sort of reminds me of China "Conscripting" 80,000 workers to clear algae from the shorelines for the Olympics.

You know what happens to them if they say 'no'? Well get ready, that is coming to the UK - wait until is your child who gets picked for "community service" or your daughter who "gets to do something productive" under the watchful eye of one of the new Political Officers.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by TruthTellist]

[edit on 21-7-2008 by TruthTellist]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I think these proposals are derogatory to people on benefits, they should be out looking for work. It would damage the pride of people already feeling down and out. With the time spent doing it you might miss that job opportunity that came around, if only you had gone to the job center that day. This is the sort of thing prisoners should be made to do.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
How anyone can say this is fair and beneficial is beyond me. Why should anyone be forced to work full time, but only receive a measly £33 a week, when those in full time employment will be taking home between £150-£200 a week for doing the same type of job. This is nothing but soul and confidence destroying slave labor. If people are forced to work full time, then they should at least be given the minimum wage.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kindred
 


Perhaps this programme is actually designed to be a soul-sucking suicide machine?
They have already discussed "Labour camps" for the unemployed.
They inspect your garbage and videotape you everywhere. They have political commissars to harass citizens forcing them (unconstitutionally) "stop and account" and enforce "free speech" zones on British citizens. Pathetic.

Now you know why you were so thoroughly disarmed. Now they are trying to ban knives!



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Well, I dont necessarily agree with forcing them to do the work, but I would say with some sort of bonus incentive (not much mind you, just enough to make it different or a bit better), this could only help.
There are a lot of people that end up homeless and would love nothing more than to get back to work to feel good about themselves. Without some reason, they are only going to sink further into the quagmire of depression and end up talking to soda cans and calling them Bob.

I love seeing inmates cleaning up the streets in the US. Men and women who have made a mistake, out providing a necessary service to help pay their own way is a good thing. The trust that comes from letting them walk mostly free down the roadways in society while keeping the feeling of a good work ethic in a positive manner is a good thing. These same people are going to be out in the workforce in short time and they will have gotten less complacent and lazy while in jail and will be stronger and ready to get up in the morning and go to work.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LLoyd45
OK, this is getting scarier by the minute. First I agree with CC, now I'm opposing Lloyd?



It probably sounds like a good thing to those who are able-bodied and employed, but just hope you never lose your job or become disabled. If you do, it sounds like you'll work for the state or die..


It is not the state's responsibility to pay someone for doing nothing. There are provisions for those truly unable to work; they are exempt from the requirement, as they should be. But for those who are able to perform work, any productive work, they must be required to either work, or do without. Anything less is pure textbook Communism, and we all know how that tends to work out.

I am all in favor of a social safety net to help those who are down on their luck. It can happen to anyone, and has happened to me several times in my life. But each time, I either pulled myself up by my bootstraps or used enough social assistance to get myself back on my feet. Too many people are using the social safety net for a hammock. That hammock can only hold so many before it breaks, and then there is no help for anyone.

Yes, it sounds strange, but I support limiting social programs because I favor helping those who need help.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join