Workfare - Long-term jobless 'made to work'

[L00b]

Why would a German business give a job to a British unemployed person who cannot speak the language?

At a (wild, wild) guess, for the same reason British businesses have been giving jobs to non-British unemployed persons who cannot speak the language for the past X years? Because they can do the work better and/or cheaper.

The unemployed could not even afford the air ticket, never mind food and lodgings while they look for work.

When I was last unemployed, I sold surplus stuff to afford the air ticket to go to an interview in a neighbouring island, and sold more surplus stuff (some not-so-surplus) to support both myself over there and the likewise-unemployed Mrs with a newborn back in the UK, until the first paycheck at month end.

 

If you want to improve your lot, or even simply rebound, bad enough...you always find ways.

[Tomataheeed]

British IT workers are finding it increasingly difficult to secure employment. There is a 17 per cent unemployment rate among computer science graduates. The weakling Cameron, who hates the British unemployed, is working with EU leaders to bring in more cheap labour from overseas, particularly India.

 

 

Yep...the large American IT company I work for ships people from India to Sheffield to fill various jobs. DBAs, developers, Oracle eBusiness...They get paid a UK salary whilst here. They expect us to train them as the long term objective is to send them back to India with the work.

 

I'm sure people from Sheffield would like those jobs.

[Cyclone]

British IT workers are finding it increasingly difficult to secure employment. There is a 17 per cent unemployment rate among computer science graduates. The weakling Cameron, who hates the British unemployed, is working with EU leaders to bring in more cheap labour from overseas, particularly India.

They aren't you know. Every IT worker I know is in work, and I know a lot. I do know about 15 who were just made redundant. They'll all found something else now though.

Graduates are probably having a harder time of it since they've no useful experience and can't actually do anything.

 

 

As most British people are not multi-lingual, this is a ridiculous idea.

What kind of excuse is this? If a foreign worker takes the time to learn basic English to get a job, you don't feel that a British person should do the same?

The unemployed could not even afford the air ticket, never mind food and lodgings while they look for work. And the German unemployment rate was 2.945 million in October, so they have a significant number of jobseekers themselves. Why would a German business give a job to a British unemployed person who cannot speak the language?

 

Why would a British employer give a job to a Polish person with only basic English?

 

What's good for the goose eh.

[InvalidUser]

I voted yes but have since been convinced otherwise from reading the thread. The poll was misleading.

 

Nonsense, the poll couldn't have been simpler. You answered before you knew the facts and now regret it. Don't blame the poll.

[Mecky]

Nonsense, the poll couldn't have been simpler. You answered before you knew the facts and now regret it. Don't blame the poll.

 

We had the argument at work. I was in the "no" camp, the other person was in the "yes" camp. TBH it was hilarious watching the numbskull squirm. Guess what, the wally has changed his tune and that is unforgivable. Even the "yes" people on here know they are wrong and they know they just keep banging on for arguments sake. You will notice that these rather unpleasant, unhappy people always have to have the last word too.

[LordChaverly]

We had the argument at work. I was in the "no" camp, the other person was in the "yes" camp. TBH it was hilarious watching the numbskull squirm. Guess what, the wally has changed his tune and that is unforgivable. Even the "yes" people on here know they are wrong and they know they just keep banging on for arguments sake. You will notice that these rather unpleasant, unhappy people always have to have the last word too.

 

There is no bigger delusion than self-delusion.

[Wildcat]

I suggest you read page 20 of the Reform Bill document I posted, which quotes another study where the programme is thought to have worked in the Australian case. As i have repeatedly said, I don't think that workfare is likely to have much impact. What ought to happen is that welfare benefits ought to be progressively reduced.

 

Page 20 quotes two studies saying it worked and two studies saying it didn't. And quotes the Freud report saying views on it are mixed.

 

Welfare benefits have been progressively reducing since the 70s and probably longer.

 

What is needed is a higher minimum wage and investment on employment programmes that do actually work, like Local Employer Partnerships, or New Deal.

[LordChaverly]

Page 20 quotes two studies saying it worked and two studies saying it didn't. And quotes the Freud report saying views on it are mixed.

 

Welfare benefits have been progressively reducing since the 70s and probably longer.

 

What is needed is a higher minimum wage and investment on employment programmes that do actually work, like Local Employer Partnerships, or New Deal.

 

I was responding to your unqualified assertion that the evidence shows that workfare does not work. I never said or implied that workfare was a success everywhere (whereas you said - or certainly implied - that it was a failure everywhere).

 

As for your other assertion that 'welfare benefits have been progressively reducing' for decades, in fact the amounts spent on welfare have increased in real terms in almost every year since (at least) the late 1970s and probably much earlier. This period includes the boom years when there were many jobs available. One of the reasons for this (although of course not the only reason) is the huge rise in the numbers on disability benefit since 1997. Another pertinent reason is the rise in the numbers of long-term jobless (i.e. those who have been out of work for ten years or more). As for a higher minimum wage as a partial solution to the problem, I very much doubt whether it could be made high enough to shift many of the two groups mentioned above off their backsides. Moreover, the higher the minimum wage, the more likely it is that we will see more unemployment, not less. The best solution, in my view, would be to wean these groups off welfare by progressively removing the teat (i.e. easy and permanent access to the £150 billion plus a year we spend on 'social security').

[andygardener]

We had the argument at work. I was in the "no" camp, the other person was in the "yes" camp. TBH it was hilarious watching the numbskull squirm. Guess what, the wally has changed his tune and that is unforgivable. Even the "yes" people on here know they are wrong and they know they just keep banging on for arguments sake. You will notice that these rather unpleasant, unhappy people always have to have the last word too.

 

Maybe you can enlighten me what is so evil about people having to do a bit of work for all the free money they get?

 

I've not seen a single post that gives good cause that the concept of working for money is in some way immoral.

[gamezone07]

Lord Freud, a Merchant Banker with no experience of social policy whatsoever, helped implement/facilitate the second NL Welfare Reform Act on the strength of only 13 weeks research!

 

He also plucked the figure that 2/3's of disabled people could work out of thin air, he is not a doctor, how on earth could he know how capable people are?

 

Oh, and many of the posters here who post diatribes against unemployed people and disabled claimants may find themselves in that position one day soon as the cuts bite into the private sector, or as wages are driven down by this slave labour wil find they are working three jobs and still sleeping in their cars as in their beloved US.