dabuckle Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 45% say NO??? if only i had free speech on sheffield forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Doesn't A4e Parasite Ltd already do that, taking a nice cut? They were saying on TV the other night it's payment by the results. The longer they keep you in a 'work' placement the more they get. So the nice lady at a4e tells you to stick in that placement under threat of telling the govenrnment to stop your benefits because they make a profit out of doing that. Great innit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 A better idea may be, that the claimant takes their benefit entitlement to an employer and says, "The government will pay you my benefit for 6 months to subsedise my wages,on condition that you give me a job that will last a minimum of 12 months." Surely it's better to pay the person their benefits regardless, let them work and pay a flat rate of tax. But allow them to opt out of the minimum wage if they so wish. Pay them to go self employed in effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 No. Forced labour means people don't have a choice. Working for benefits might more accurately be seen as indentured labour Wouldn't it be more akin to corvee labour? And with structural unemployment there is already a pool of slave labour, but instead of working for the state, the state has you work for private businesses/the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Interesting point you made there. Who would be your employer? The State? And what happens to the workers who would have got the jobs in the first place....are they now the unemployed unemployable? The plot thickens. Thank you skinz. My point exactly. The people applying for these jobs would get at least minimum wage. Once this slave labour comes in, those jobs will no longer be available due to those on benefits doing them. Doesn't A4e Parasite Ltd already do that, taking a nice cut? They were saying on TV the other night it's payment by the results. The longer they keep you in a 'work' placement the more they get. So the nice lady at a4e tells you to stick in that placement under threat of telling the govenrnment to stop your benefits because they make a profit out of doing that. Great innit? Not really. After 3 months A4e claim the vast majority of their payment (12 or 14k. I forget which one it is now). After three months there isn't so much of an incentive to keep people in work. Why would they? Coerce people into work for 3 months then let them sign on again. Have them referred back to A4e and start the process again. 12k every 4 or 5 months for A4e. It's like a rolling contract for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I can't see that it would be a BAD thing. The benefits claimants would still be just that, and so would still get their rent and council tax paid, and get their benefits. Even though they would be working 'for less than minimum wage', They'd probably still be better off than a lot of minimum wage workers at the end of the month. I assume it would only apply for people getting JSA and not IS or other benefits that you get when you are 'unable' to work. Therefore, the JSA claimant should be actively looking for, and want to work. Going to work for their benefits should help them to get some experience, and confidence, and improve their prospects for future jobs. From what I've heard of these plans, it wouldn't be a permanent job, just temporary for a few weeks, and then the claimant would be replaced with another. However, for the lazy ones, who actually don't want to work, then it would be 'forced' in a way, I suppose. I just fail to see where all the jobs will come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 On a similar theme assessment for the capability of work is to be taken away from GPs. http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/reform_for_gps_giving_long_term_sick_notes A couple of things concern me: 1) Who is expected to pay for this, since the work will be undertaken by "private" contractors? The patient, where are they going to get the money to pay for this since they're on benefits? The public purse? If so why not just pay GPs to do it? 2) What do assessors know about health, let alone individual health problems? What would some monkey on a tick box exercise know about someone's health, would they even see the patient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 If I was a younger person claiming JSA (no illness or disability) and struggling to find work I think I'd want to be given the chance to work. A single person living independently would be getting a fair bit in benefits on top of JSA. Rent and council tax benefits could easily add up to around £80 or more plus JSA of 53.45 (under 25) 30 hours at minimum wage of £6.08 is just over £180 a week. Once rent and council tax (as above) were deducted it would still leave around £100 (less NI) more than £40 more than JSA. If there were jobs available for a minimum of 30 hours at minimum wage then there is surely no disincentive to take them, is there? Of course, full time work would bring in even more. If a scheme was applied where people could actually see some financial benefit, and get proper work experience, then it could be a winner. Its just a pity it wasn't done a few years ago when there were more jobs available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Not really. After 3 months A4e claim the vast majority of their payment (12 or 14k. I forget which one it is now). After three months there isn't so much of an incentive to keep people in work. Why would they? Coerce people into work for 3 months then let them sign on again. Have them referred back to A4e and start the process again. 12k every 4 or 5 months for A4e. It's like a rolling contract for them. No, they definetely said this on TV the other night. Chris Grayling, the employment minister, was saying that the work programme would make enhanced payments to providers based on how long they got people into work placements for. Two years was mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 why dosent the gov instead of giving more money to emma harrisons coffers give this money to an employer direct after the person has been employed for the 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.