Workfare - Long-term jobless 'made to work'

[andygardener]

There isn't an 'hourly rate' for out of work benefits - just a weekly rate. But this new welfare reform will stipulate a set number of hours to be worked per week (at least 30) which means an hourly rate of pay in relation to benefit can easily be identified.

 

It can indeed. The proposal is that long term unemployed people will work for 4 weeks at 30 hours a week or lose their benefit for 3 months. So depending on how long they have been unemployed the hourly rate works out as follows -

 

1 year unemployed £3403.30 benefit - Hourly rate £28.36

2 year unemployed £6806.60 benefit - Hourly rate £56.72

5 year unemployed £17016.50 benefit - Hourly rate £141.80

 

Hardly starvation wages.

[harvey19]

How can you make £65 a week a good rate in any circumstance?

 

See post 101

[Grandad.Malky]

No because they get enough on benefits not to go out an do these,its not cheap labour,its a wage and if it puts a roof and feeds em rather than us working people paying for them then its worth it to get them back to work.

 

That was my point, sorry if it was made very well.

[Rupert_Baehr]

. .

[onewheeldave]

I understand your fears but hope the 2 scenarios are seperate and would hopefully not impose on each other.

I would expect the scheme to use people to do jobs that are not currently being done.

 

I'd expect the opposite, as

 

1. that's what's happened with similar past schemes (mentioned in some of the posts on this thread)

2. work that needs doing is work that needs doing- if there's no free labour there's a good chance someone will be employed to do it- if there is free labour available, clearly there's a very good chance that that will be used instead, which means one less person with a job.

[andygardener]

I'd expect the opposite, as

 

1. that's what's happened with similar past schemes (mentioned in some of the posts on this thread)

2. work that needs doing is work that needs doing- if there's no free labour there's a good chance someone will be employed to do it- if there is free labour available, clearly there's a very good chance that that will be used instead, which means one less person with a job.

 

It's a 4 week scheme for the long term unemployed. No council is going to be able to lay off street cleaners or gardeners on the basis of this idea as is very short term. There's always a bit extra that can be done but I can't see any circumstance in which this would lead to council workers being laid off as a consequence of theis idea.

[harvey19]

I'd expect the opposite, as

 

1. that's what's happened with similar past schemes (mentioned in some of the posts on this thread)

2. work that needs doing is work that needs doing- if there's no free labour there's a good chance someone will be employed to do it- if there is free labour available, clearly there's a very good chance that that will be used instead, which means one less person with a job.

 

I hope this scheme does not result in your predictions.

[espadrille]

I'd expect the opposite, as

 

1. that's what's happened with similar past schemes (mentioned in some of the posts on this thread)

2. work that needs doing is work that needs doing- if there's no free labour there's a good chance someone will be employed to do it- if there is free labour available, clearly there's a very good chance that that will be used instead, which means one less person with a job.

 

Did you read my post 83???

[Rupert_Baehr]

. .

[Lady Star]

This has been a project that has been run since the 1980's (at least) and so isn't new at all... It's a joke to pretend otherwise... A4e, Remploy, CTS, Wise - that's what they do, take the work-shy and send em out on 'work experience'...