andygardener Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 We've clearly got a problem with unemployment and while the minimum wage has some advantages one disadvantage is that it means those at the bottom end of the job market cannot compete on price anymore and some end up long term unemployed. A solution might be a national work service to replace out of work benefits. Owned by the taxpayer, profits straight to the taxpayer, employing those out of work in manufacturing jobs at a rate of say £2.00 an hour. This would allow us to compete in markets which the NMW makes unavailable and because it's considerably lower than the NMW would not replace any existing jobs. Unemployment would be removed and those working for the service would always have an up to date reference allowing them much greater chance to get back into mainstream employment when vacancies arise. The out of work benefits bill could become revenue neutral or even make a profit. Those who have never worked would get into the routine of work and have the opportunity of a life of work rather than welfare dependancy. Exports would increase and dependance on foreign imports would decrease. Any profits would go straight to the taxpayer and not to big corporations. I appreciate there would be setup costs but long term problems do need long term solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Well worded, whenever i've started something similar people have shot it down saying that's not what National Service is... Yeah! But yes, I thought that people could also be trained in first aid, maybe do a stint in low level policing, help the National Trust and various other charities. I volunteer anyway, so this doesn't seem like much to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honeycomb Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 No; it would undercut 'real' workers and cause even more unemployment. If you work then you should receive at least NMW for that work. However, genuine, voluntary, work experience (for a fixed amount of time not ongoing slave labour) would be of benefit to long term unemployed, making them more employable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 No; it would undercut 'real' workers and cause even more unemployment. If you work then you should receive at least NMW for that work. However, genuine, voluntary, work experience (for a fixed amount of time not ongoing slave labour) would be of benefit to long term unemployed, making them more employable. I agree that work done for charities is preferable, ensuring that those already in employment are not being undercut. I think the OP is correct that we do have a problem with youth unemployment and long term unemployemt in particular, however in addition to the 'softer' supply side initiatives, there neesds to be an active industrial policy too. That's part of the equation that been neglected for too many years with politicians seeing unemployment as an act of God rather than wasteful and corrosive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 You would first need to get rid of the minimum wage laws, then as Honeycomb says you must not undercut the real workers. Then you need to take into account the £billions already spent or earmarked for the workfare scheme as that would need cancelling and compensation given to the current contracted providers. Then perhaps find out exactly how many long term unemployed it would cover and what they would then produce. Despite the money already spent in the past on work schemes, New Deal, Back to Work initiative and now Workfare the unemployment figures have not changed much over those years. TBH I think that unemployment will continue to rise as the population increases and less real jobs become available. Perhaps it would be a good idea to put all current employed workers on a maximum fixed contract of 4 years and then have them apply again for the job. Too many people seem to be in jobs they are not fit for and their employers are currently scared of getting rid of them, doing that may give some of the unemployed a chance at a job. Cutting the retirement could also free up jobs. Its also cheaper for the country as a whole to pay people basic benefits and perhaps accept the fact that for some periods of unemployment will become part of their lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 No; it would undercut 'real' workers and cause even more unemployment. If you work then you should receive at least NMW for that work. However, genuine, voluntary, work experience (for a fixed amount of time not ongoing slave labour) would be of benefit to long term unemployed, making them more employable. If we did it in this way then the only real workers being undertcut would be in foreign countries we currently have to import from. No British jobs would be replaced or undercut at all. By focusing on industries that the NMW makes undoable in the UK at the moment we would remove the job removal issue from workfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 What work are you going to find these peple to do ? We have just heard that the government is more or less dismantling Remploy, because it leads to expensively subsidising a few hundred disabled people to work for decades, rather than helping many more disabled people from working in regular companies with some support. It sounds to me like your scheme could be similar, but expensively subsidising a few people who do not have high expectations for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 What work are you going to find these peple to do ? We have just heard that the government is more or less dismantling Remploy, because it leads to expensively subsidising a few hundred disabled people to work for decades, rather than helping many more disabled people from working in regular companies with some support. It sounds to me like your scheme could be similar, but expensively subsidising a few people who do not have high expectations for themselves. Labour intensive manufacturing that is profitable at around the £2 an hour mark but not at all at NMW due to foeign competition. No subsidies required. We use our resources to make goods we need. We reduce imports of those goods and manufacture them internally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 We are in recession, didn't anyone tell you ?? jobs for everyone are short. Dont fall for the old Tory ploy of whipping up blame for the unemployed and scapegoating. This shower of ****e they call a government seems to be trying to inflict pain and misery on all disadvantaged people, even the disabled. The time to scrutinise the unemployed was when jobs were plentifull, not now. How much has the importing of cheap and grateful foreign labour contributed to unemployment ??? [besides keeping wages low] The Torys are in the ****......again..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 What work are you going to find these peple to do ? We have just heard that the government is more or less dismantling Remploy, because it leads to expensively subsidising a few hundred disabled people to work for decades, rather than helping many more disabled people from working in regular companies with some support. It sounds to me like your scheme could be similar, but expensively subsidising a few people who do not have high expectations for themselves. if the Torys are intending to support the disabled working in regular companies, why are they trying to get rid of the Equality Act ??? [For the benefit of Tony this act replaced the old DDA ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.