Okay, we'll have to disagree on this. I believe that any work (and not all of it is picking up litter) is preferable to no work at all and that ensuring people maintain work habits is beneficial.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Tories & Lib Dems propose forced labour
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
Okay, we'll have to disagree on this. I believe that any work (and not all of it is picking up litter) is preferable to no work at all and that ensuring people maintain work habits is beneficial.
Francesca R
Girl
Presumably you are opposed to minimum wages in that case?
No I'm not. A program like this can work hand-in-hand with a minimum wage. It's quite easy to compartmentalize participants and approve projects which don't take jobs off others. I've seen it work.
I understand people being concerned about this, but I think the benefits of keeping the unemployed working are significant.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
None of the parties are arguing that. That's why, as I previously stated, the scrapped Future Jobs Fund was far superior to this idea.
Francesca R
Girl
But the philosophy behind a minimum wage is contrary to "any work [ . . . ] is preferable to no work at all". Simply put, work that is worth less than the minimum is inferior to no work at all. And these schemes are essentially about unpaid work.
As far as I can tell, they can only do this by embedding an amount of hypocrisy/inconsistency.
Which is another way of saying what I've said, I think. Left-of-centre folks (and Dr Rowan Williams) will then likely label that as creating a "social underclass" of long-term unemployed (who suddenly look unemployable, and do so thanks to the program they're on). Have you considered that?
In the UK, of course, the conservatives didn't bring in the minimum wage so they are likely philosophically opposed to it anyway, but reluctant to publicly abolish it. But to support this scheme is, in all honesty, to be against minimum wages.
As I have said, I have seen benefits from the essentially identical Work for the Dole program here. We have what has long been defined as "full employment", or around 5% unemployment, so we don't really need a program which has the effect of punishing or hiding the unemployed. Yet Work for the Dole continues (alongside many other training programs). Why? Because it provides experience and pathways for some of the unemployed.
Francesca R
Girl
Interesting dodge of all the points raised in what you quoted, presumably because you know this program just will work. . .
Looks like you are pro-minimum wage and pro-inconsistency (IE it need not apply if people are unemployed long enough)
Looks like you are pro-minimum wage and pro-inconsistency (IE it need not apply if people are unemployed long enough)
I can't understand this level of irritation you are exhibiting. I didn't dodge anything. I pointed out a similar program which meets it's objectives.
You have convinced yourself that a program like the one proposed cannot work alongside minimum wages. Why is it working in Australia, a country with similar economic and industrial institutions?
Francesca R
Girl
You didn't actually respond to any points in post 45 (min wage is contrary to "any job is better than none" and compartmentalising participants is hypocritical in a philosophical sense and apt to be labelled "social engineering", or maybe "cleansing" just for good measure . . . )
False, I am suggesting that the two contradict each other philosophically and wondering how you reconcile that. Why not--for example--just abolish minimum wage altogether?
This is not related to my points, which are nothing to do with whether it "can work"
You may feel that the Government doesn't, but HMRC certainly does:
(as per the link I posted earlier, reposted here where they detail how they're tackling the tax gap, gap type by gap type)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pbr2009/prote...venue-5450.pdf
Alan
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,714
A 21-year-old childless job hunter doing work for the dole in Australia gets $490.50 (£307.55) a fortnight from the government for looking for work and doing 32 hours of work for the dole a fortnight. That's $15.30 per hour of working for the dole.
$469.70 plus $20.80
Now, the article in the OP says that a £65 Jobseekers' Allowance is cut off for three months for people refusing to take part in this new plan. That's not much to get paid in comparison...
$469.70 plus $20.80
Now, the article in the OP says that a £65 Jobseekers' Allowance is cut off for three months for people refusing to take part in this new plan. That's not much to get paid in comparison...
Last edited:
bit_pattern
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,406
Lionking - Work for the Dole never actually worked, it was basically discontinued over ten years ago, it only ran for a couple of years - if that. It still exists (or it did last time I made a claim) as an option to fulfill an Activity Agreement but is no longer compulsory, most people opt for less degrading activities such as employment training or intensive job search programmes. It was only kept around as a token gesture so the government never had to admit to having scrapped it.
Last edited:
Correct. It was hardly "basically discontinued" and it is one of the longest running labor market programs. It's not the complete answer, but it meets it's objectives.
bit_pattern
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,406
No it hasn't. Nobody participates in it. How is that meeting its objectives? The scheme doesn't even barely resemble the scheme that was initially enacted, where all jobseekers in an age bracket were forced to participate, because the whole concept was an utter failure, hence why it became very quickly a mere option to fulfill ones Mutual Obligation requirements, one that people rarely choose. The Coalition never scrapped it because they would have been mauled by Labor, the ALP didn't scrap it because pander to the supposed 'battler' constituency. It's longevity says nothing about its efficacy, merely its political palatibility.
Last edited:
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
There are still tens of thousands of participants of the Work for the Dole program. Not as many as in the past. Why? Unemployment is way down.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/plunge-in-work-for-dole-cases/story-e6frgczf-1225858541553
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/plunge-in-work-for-dole-cases/story-e6frgczf-1225858541553
Not everyone likes it, particularly those of the left.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
We have already had unpaid work placements that have involved training and skills - a friend of mine told me the other day that he had just been on one, working in IT (he still doesn't have a job though).
What is proposed is not work that provides any sort of training, skills, or useful experience - it is pointless, unskilled, manual labour.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
Specious reasoning or direct correlation?
Fengirl
Graduate Poster
Indeed.
I had the misfortune to be unemployed for several months last year, as did my husband. As a requirement of receiving our £65 per week Jobseeker's Allowance, we both had to attend a variety of workshops, designed for unemployed professionals to "aid" us in our job search. One such workshop was attended by 20+ unemployed professionals including several IT professionals, an architect, 2 psychologists, 2 lawyers, a number of financial advisers/bankers and assorted other professionals. ALL of us were over 40, ALL of us were previously hard-working taxpayers, (some at higher rate), ALL of us had lost our jobs through cutbacks and redundancies. ALL of us were better qualified and better educated than the woman running the workshop!
I really struggle to see what essential job skills any of us lacked which would have been improved by being forced to do unskilled, manual labour. Frankly, the requirement to attend these sorts of "training opportunities" acts as a punitive hurdle to be negotiated, which simply incurs additional time and travel costs and distracts from what we were ALL trying to do - find a bloody job!*
Demonising the unemployed and using rhetoric that suggests that the majority are just workshy, benefit scroungers who have no job skills and no motivation to find work is utterly deplorable. Introducing policies which have the effect of punishing and shaming the jobless is totally counterproductive.
* Incidentally, the staff at the local job centre openly admitted that they had nothing to offer in terms of actually HELPING unemployed professionals find work. As far as finding work was concerned, you were on your own. Their job was simply to police the system. The only training opportunities available were reserved for the 18 - 25 age group. Everyone else...well, tough ****.