Workfare - Long-term jobless 'made to work'

[Mr Prime]

Of course! How silly of me! I forgot!

 

This is the People's Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire. If anything goes wrong, it must be Thatcher's fault!

 

I said: "And yet the country has to import people to do the skilled work British people (apparently) can't do." and you replied:

 

"Maybe if Thatcher had not been so keen to get rid of our manufacturing base in the 80s it would have been different".

 

Tell me. How, exactly, did whatever Thatcher may or may not have done affect the suitability for employment of modern (non) workers many of whom were either not born, not yet at school or still in school when she was in power?

 

More than 40% of the children who took GCSEs last year did not manage to get 5 at Grade C or above. That's the standard the previous government suggested was the minimum necessary to get a job.

 

When Thatcher was deposed, those children weren't even born. The graduates who left university this summer were newborns when she left power.

 

How is it her fault that so many are unemployable?

 

Like you, I am dismayed by the small size of the industrial manufacturing sector in the British economy. Thatcher didn't start the decline, nor was she responsible for the major part of it. I remember all too well the wildcat strikes in the British Motor industry in the 1970s - long before Thatcher came to power. I remember a union convenor having his car inspected when he left work having called his members out on strike. He just happened to have his golf clubs in the back of the car. Apparently, that was so that in the (amazingly) unlikely event that there should happen to be an unforseen dispute and the factory was to go on strike, he wouldn't have to go home to get them.

 

I remember the 'winter of discontent'. I also remember numerous miners' strikes (and how - after one such strike - the workers in a pit near where I lived opted to work a 4-day week, now that they'd got the additional money they were after.) I remember Scargill's bully boy tactics and I - like many others - was glad when Thatcher trampled him.

 

Thatcher welcomed the finance sector (perhaps in part because of the unreliability of much of the industrial manufacturing sector.) Major continued that part of her policy and Nu-Labout under Blair did a pretty good job of trashing as much as it could of the rest.

 

There is no single group responsible for the decline in manufacturing. Successive governments, the management, the workers themselves and global change all share the blame.

 

Even if the UK did have a large manufacturing sector, there would be few unskilled jobs. There is no shortage of unskilled workers in the 3rd world; if you want unskilled work - go there and get it. The average pay for a sweatshop worker in the 3rd world is pennies a day. That's the going rate for that sort of job and if a company set up in the UK doing the same work that the Chinese sweatshops do, it wouldn't last 5 minutes if it paid UK minimum wage. There is also no shortage of graduates with degrees in underwater basket weaving who are more than capable of saying: "Do you want fries with that?"

 

.

 

Much of that is factually incorrect as has been proven by information emerging over the years. How could Scargill be a bully boy when he was fighting back against an aggressor backed up by the police, security services and lying media? Do you think if Scargill never existed the miners would have just shrugged their shoulders? To quote a miner at Armthorpe "Scargill can't bring 150'000 men out on strike unless they want to, and we started it not the leadership".

 

British cars faded away because they were crap. The workers only built them. The men who designed them were all middle class graduates, they blew it. Even at the height of 'Red Robbo's activities thousands were being pumped out but people stopped buying them.

[Greybeard]

What would the critics of this incentive do to break the cycle of people not working long term and living on benefits do to change the situation ?

Real practical measures not theory.

 

 

More of a punishment than an incentive, and one which doesn't discriminate between the work-shy and the workless. To subject the unemployed to this kind of humiliation irrespective of what effort they have made to find employment is pretty callous.

 

There are no doubt many who do need this kind of wake-up call but they are the ones who have made a career out of unemployment over several years. Applying this measure to people who have been unemployed for just twelve months is adding insult to injury.

 

The ratio of unemployed to vacancies is 5:1, - a fact the govt. can't escape and seem determined to make worse.

 

I can't see any way out of the mess, - politicians created it so it's up to politicians to fix it, but blindly lashing out at the victims won't help at all.

[INTERVIEWER]

Have you factored in the other benefits they get, as another poster has mentioned, and the subsidised bus passes for the unemployed?

 

The unemployed don't get subsidised bus passes. What on earth made you think that they did? They have to pay for their day-to-day travel in just the same way as those in employment.

 

Maybe they'll probably be on more than minimum wage after all that's taken into account? Maybe they might even be above the tax threshold? Win-Win!

 

You live in a Tory inspired fantasy land, where reality rarely intrudes. I truly despair.

[harvey19]

But what you seem to be ignoring is the benefit of the routine of the job, not the actual job itself. Why cant people just get this??

 

They do not want to acknowledge this only criticise.

[llamatron]

It will give people on long term benefits a reference and prove that they are still able to work 9-5 responsibly....unless they fail to do it.

 

It could work well.

 

I guess if they do work well depending on what the job is, it might be an "in" to a company.

[harvey19]

The type of manual work Ian Duncan Smith and his Tory/Lib Dem buddies want the unemployed to do is currently being carried out by convicted criminals sentenced to the Community Service programme. The ConDems are deliberately associating the unemployed with being a criminal in the eyes of public opinion. And as being unemployed is now a crime, it stands to reason that they must be punished!

 

If you haven't committed a criminal offence then why should you be forced to do the same work as criminals?

 

Do you really beleive what you say ?

[steiner]

What this will do also is stop those on the dole fiddling for a month,lol god knows how some of them will manage then.

[Mr Prime]

Is that all they get? Don't they get their rent and CT paid as well? Those of us working have to pay those out of our wages? Won't that improve their hourly rate?

 

Being self employed I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

 

Interviewers arguments are extremist as usual and paint a picture of a Dickensian nightmare. It's worth looking at the bigger picture.

 

When the welfare state was created it was done so on the basis that the vast majority wanted to work, would feel ashamed not to and would accept low paid jobs knowing their housing, health and education were all covered. With the depression and before in mind they were grateful and the contract with the people worked.

 

Fast forward to today and socialism and shame are dead. Pride is unknown to a lot of people too. Today it's all about the individual and individual rights and sod responsibility to the taxpayer. This leads to some people living for years on benefits and when asked why responding with "I'm entitled", "I know my rights" and "I don't care what anyone thinks". A stepping stone has become the basis for an entire life, a state provided alternative to work. Can anyone on here justify two or three generations with no work at all? The only people who deserve total protection are mothers, over 60's and the disabled. Mothers shouldn't expect to have child after child subsisdised and a home automatically provided either.

 

As for the proposals, as they cover 4 weeks only, kicking in after a year while simultaneously having complete health coverage and a home provided then comparisons with the 19th century are simply wrong.

[rubydazzler]

The unemployed don't get subsidised bus passes. What on earth made you think that they did? They have to pay for their day-to-day travel in just the same way as those in employment.

Yes they do, in Barnsley anyway. A friend of mine has one, and they used to have them in Sheffield too, don't know whether they still do. Maybe it's a local thing?

 

You live in a Tory inspired fantasy land, where reality rarely intrudes. I truly despair.

So how much do you think the hourly rate will be if you factor in the other benefits that unemployed people get? I realise it'll only be approximate because some people live in larger houses and therefore pay more rent and CT, and some people still live with bank of mummy and daddy But you seem to have some idea about adding up and dividing , just a ball park figure will do.

 

I truly despair about people who are willing to lounge around every day for years living on benefits, there are jobs, they just don't want to do them. If they won't take a carrot, the stick will have to come into play. Sorry if having to go and sweep up somewhere offends your sensibilities, but if it does, go and get a different job!

[espadrille]

They do not want to acknowledge this only criticise.

 

I used to work in supported employment. Some of the people we supported had never had a job through no fault of their own. They either had mental health problems , learning disabilities or autism.

Just meeting with them and encouraging them to believe they actually could do a job with support was the first step, then giving them an opportunity to do some voluntary work was often the next one or a work placement.

For some the environment was important, for others the support was the most crucial thing but the facts are that if done properly it actually work. It is costly at source and this has to be recognised as, for many who have never worked, or havent done for (say) years, the change to their daily routine is such a shock that this is the first thing they have to get right.Then the work bit and learning the job is the next stage.

 

It takes time and patience but the outcomes are usually positive for all those involved, including the employer if it is done right.