I1L2T3 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 They'd have to work for their benefits, not for nothing. But so long as they'd only ever have to work for the government doing jobs that can't otherwise be afforded then the threat you mention doesn't exist. See where you're coming from but could a situation develop where more and more work could not be afforded, just to get it done on the cheap by claimants. This could be deliberately engineered by a cynical government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 See where you're coming from but could a situation develop where more and more work could not be afforded, just to get it done on the cheap by claimants. This could be deliberately engineered by a cynical government. You don't have to be cynical to see a scenario whereby the Government reduces the funding available to local authorities to an extent that they can't afford roadsweepers, litter picking, park maintenance, graffiti removal etc but lo and behold we have thousands of benefit claimants forced to carry out these tasks if they want to carry on receiving their benefits - make full time employees redundant but get them to do exactly the same job when they start claiming benefits - saves a fortune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with doing something to benefit the community when the community is supporting them through benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 You don't have to be cynical to see a scenario whereby the Government reduces the funding available to local authorities to an extent that they can't afford roadsweepers, litter picking, park maintenance, graffiti removal etc but lo and behold we have thousands of benefit claimants forced to carry out these tasks if they want to carry on receiving their benefits - make full time employees redundant but get them to do exactly the same job when they start claiming benefits - saves a fortune The problem is that we can't afford them now and they do clean all areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 See where you're coming from but could a situation develop where more and more work could not be afforded, just to get it done on the cheap by claimants. This could be deliberately engineered by a cynical government. It's possible, but if they wanted to do that they could already engineer that situation. I know you can't trust the government to be honest and benevolent, but were discussing policies in theory, and so you have to assume a reasonably honest and reasonably benevolent implementation of them, otherwise any policy could be twisted to just screw people over and we'd conclude that no policy was any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 You don't have to be cynical to see a scenario whereby the Government reduces the funding available to local authorities to an extent that they can't afford roadsweepers, litter picking, park maintenance, graffiti removal etc but lo and behold we have thousands of benefit claimants forced to carry out these tasks if they want to carry on receiving their benefits - make full time employees redundant but get them to do exactly the same job when they start claiming benefits - saves a fortune Companies can't do that..employ someone else to do the work of a redundant employee..are councils diferent..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyDazzler Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I've always thought that people on benefits should have to do just one day a week picking up litter, clearing river banks or my personal bugbear, cleaning up dog muck. It's not too much to ask, it would really help the community and would act as an insentive to find a proper job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Companies can't do that..employ someone else to do the work of a redundant employee..are councils diferent..? if you are made redundant for economic reasons your job isn't replaced - in the above scenario they aren't "employing" someone, they are making benefit claimants work to enable them to receive benefits - but if you are assuming the Government can make people do a job without paying the minimum wage, why not assume they can also change other employment laws to suit their purposes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Move house or buy a moped. Because unemployed people are in just the circumstances to think about buying things or moving house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Meh, I live on Netherthorpe and applied to the Asda in S5, they said no because for personal reasons (which before anyone asks I can't disclose), I cannot work nights or weekends This isn't a thread about you Rich, but do you accept that there is a limit to how far away even you would apply for a job. Personally, as I'm self employed I've worked in Kent and London within the last 3 years, but I don't think the job centre would expect anyone to do that. How far is too far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.