Workfare - Long-term jobless 'made to work'

[harvey19]

"16 weeks benefits for 4 weeks work. "

 

this is a bogus analysis.

 

No it isn,t.

I have not mentioned the years benefits that have been paid to some people for doing nothing.

If you search the thread others have analysed it.

[harvey19]

Not according to the Tories, and David Cameron's vision of the 'Big' society - where poor people work for no pay. The 'Work' programme will only pay benefits which are equivalent to less than £2 per hour for hard, manual work.

 

That the Lib Dems support the economic exploitation of some of the poorest people in this society, by supporting this new workfare programme, is firm evidence that this bunch of shysters only care about power, and holding on to it at all costs.

 

Would you welcome this opportunity for the unemployed to be given help in improving their employment prospects if labour had introduced it ?

[espadrille]

Not according to the Tories, and David Cameron's vision of the 'Big' society - where poor people work for no pay. The 'Work' programme will only pay benefits which are equivalent to less than £2 per hour for hard, manual work.

 

That the Lib Dems support the economic exploitation of some of the poorest people in this society, by supporting this new workfare programme, is firm evidence that this bunch of shysters only care about power, and holding on to it at all costs.

 

Preposterous, exhorbitant and turgid are the words that spring to mind regarding this statement.

[dongle]

i wonder how many unemployed voted no in the poll?

[eastbank]

Which works out at what per hour?

 

If the job is there to be done then the person doing it should be paid at least the min wage.

 

If someone is working then they are not normally on benefits.

 

How are they going to force someone to work for below the min wage, would that not be against the law?

 

well if a single bloke gets £60...then he can do 10 hours picking up litter and sweeping the streets...then he's on more than the minimum wage...result

[mossdog]

Not according to the Tories, and David Cameron's vision of the 'Big' society - where poor people work for no pay. The 'Work' programme will only pay benefits which are equivalent to less than £2 per hour for hard, manual work.

 

That the Lib Dems support the economic exploitation of some of the poorest people in this society, by supporting this new workfare programme, is firm evidence that this bunch of shysters only care about power, and holding on to it at all costs.

What's the left wing alternative to all this then,..................carrying on borrowing to keep the existing systems afloat for a bit longer?

[dongle]

well if a single bloke gets £60...then he can do 10 hours picking up litter and sweeping the streets...then he's on more than the minimum wage...result

 

dont forget the council tax/housing/dental care

[INTERVIEWER]

When a full time employee leaves they will be able to apply for the post and have relevant experience.

 

It is much more likely that when a full time employee leaves, or is made redundant, they will be replaced by an unwaged 'Work' programme worker.

 

Overseas, in places such as New York, there has been a massive loss of unionised public sector manual labour jobs, whilst there has been a massive growth in workfare workers. The correlation between lost salaried jobs and the growth in workfare unsalaried jobs is obvious to even the most casual of observers.

 

Perhaps the greatest con-trick of the 'Work' programme is that it's supposed to prepare people for real jobs with real wages. Yet workfare can't, and won't, remove the barriers to employment that keep people on benefit in the first place, like the lack of affordable child care for women or adequate training.

[jasd75]

a lot of companies only want immigrants to work for them

 

Have you got any examples (and proof of their policy on recruitment)? One would do.

 

i have worked in factories that apart from a few english people everyone else is polish or portuguese and when the english person leaves they are replaced with an immigrant ok so a lot of english people are lazy and the companies know that

 

Well that's me convinced?!?

[harvey19]

It is much more likely that when a full time employee leaves, or is made redundant, they will be replaced by an unwaged 'Work' programme worker.

 

Scaremongering

Overseas, in places such as New York, there has been a massive loss of unionised public sector manual labour jobs, whilst there has been a massive growth in workfare workers. The correlation between lost salaried jobs and the growth in workfare unsalaried jobs is obvious to even the most casual of observers.

 

This is England, many differences between the 2 countries. Give it a chance[/b

 

]Perhaps the greatest con-trick of the 'Work' programme is that it's supposed to prepare people for real jobs with real wages. Yet workfare can't, and won't, remove the barriers to employment that keep people on benefit in the first place, like the lack of affordable child care for women or adequate training.

 

All my family have worked and brought up families.

Life is what you make it.