maxmaximus Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 So then they can be advertised and unemployed people can apply for them. Such as? What tasks can they do? I will refer you back to the OP What is the view of members on able people who are claiming benefits and not working to help maintain the community surroundings such as? Litter picking, Removing Graffiti, Clearing leaves, Snow clearing etc. I'm sure you could even think of some things that need doing that aren’t being done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 What true colours, I've always been of the opinion that if one is capable of working then one should work, and if that means working for benefits I don't have a problem with it. There are plenty of jobs that need doing and plenty of people given money for doing nothing, why is it a major issue expecting them to do something for the money they now receive. ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 12:26 ---------- It doesn't need scrapping it just needs changing; I would call it work for benefits, so if someone falls on hard times and loses their job the state finds them something to do and pays them enough to survive until they find something better. Are we talking living wage here? If they are doing a job given them by the government then surely they are not unemployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 All perfectly valid jobs for people to do. Certainly. Employ people to do them on a wage and they don't need benefits. Equally, make park maintenance and street cleaning a job done by forced labour and you've suddenly got a lot of newly unemployed park workers and street cleaners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Are we talking living wage here? If they are doing a job given them by the government then surely they are not unemployed. I talking about whatever they get now in the form of benefits, getting the same but for doing some work, that would mean each person would be assessed as they are now and given the appropriate amount of work to get that money. These wouldn’t be permanent jobs; they would be temporary until they find a more permanent job. The government can’t afford to employ everyone on full time basis but they get some productive work out of the people they already give money to. Everyone would benefit, the country would look nicer and the claimant would be gaining work experience and exercise as well as having a sense of pride in what they do. Giving something for nothing in return just instils a sense of dependency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Everyone would benefit No they wouldn't. A lot of people would suffer with the act or threat of the state undercutting the price of their labour. It's inherently flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 No they wouldn't. A lot of people would suffer with the act or threat of the state undercutting the price of their labour. It's inherently flawed. Only because you don't understand the difference between doing something that isn't already being done and something that is already being done. Done right and no one would suffer other than the layabouts that want to stay in bed all day, or the benefits cheats that want to claim and work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 No they wouldn't. A lot of people would suffer with the act or threat of the state undercutting the price of their labour. It's inherently flawed. No you and I know there are jobs at the moment that arnt been done. Litter picking and cleaning is one such example. Gardening is another. There are lots of areas in this city that look a right tip. Current council workers are stretched as it is to deal with their workload. Thefore why not get people who have nothing to do something to do? If I were unemployed I'd be happy to do this its something constructive after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 No you and I know there are jobs at the moment that arnt been done. Litter picking and cleaning is one such example. Gardening is another. There are lots of areas in this city that look a right tip. Current council workers are stretched as it is to deal with their workload. Thefore why not get people who have nothing to do something to do? If I were unemployed I'd be happy to do this its something constructive after all. Me too, but I guess we will never convince the lazy that it’s good for them to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 I talking about whatever they get now in the form of benefits, getting the same but for doing some work, that would mean each person would be assessed as they are now and given the appropriate amount of work to get that money. These wouldn’t be permanent jobs; they would be temporary until they find a more permanent job. The government can’t afford to employ everyone on full time basis but they get some productive work out of the people they already give money to. Everyone would benefit, the country would look nicer and the claimant would be gaining work experience and exercise as well as having a sense of pride in what they do. Giving something for nothing in return just instils a sense of dependency. This amounts to enforced cheap labour whatever terms you may use to justify it. I fully understand your frustration at seeing people "getting something for nothing" and whatever the answer may be to ease those frustrations this is not it. Workers have been undermined enough. I'm not referring to the unemployed alone. In all those cases you have suggested there are already people doing those jobs...and if those jobs are vacant then pay the going rate or go to hell is my attitude. ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 13:24 ---------- Me too, but I guess we will never convince the lazy that it’s good for them to work. Are you saying that unemployed people are lazy then? ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 13:28 ---------- No you and I know there are jobs at the moment that arnt been done. Litter picking and cleaning is one such example. Gardening is another. There are lots of areas in this city that look a right tip. Current council workers are stretched as it is to deal with their workload. Thefore why not get people who have nothing to do something to do? If I were unemployed I'd be happy to do this its something constructive after all. Re my bold. They are understaffed! It may have escaped your attention but cuts have been made to help pay debts incurred by politicians of all persuasions who are incompetent and a bunch of greedy bankers who were kept afloat by your taxes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Only because you don't understand the difference between doing something that isn't already being done and something that is already being done. I understand it perfectly. You want to force hard working gardeners to compete with free labour. "I need my garden cleaning. Shall I employ the £10 an hour gardener, or get the free one provided by the state? Choices choices." Done right and no one would suffer other than the layabouts Are you arguing that the state can do something correct that a free market can't? No you and I know there are jobs at the moment that arnt been done. Don't presume what I know. Secondly, if there are jobs at the moment that aren't being done, then the answer is not forced labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.