Tebbit says young unemployed should pull weeds for benefits.

[SavannahP]

So aimed at a very small minority of long term claimants.

 

What a waste of time, it's such a small problem, we have much larger fish to fry.

 

The government and public sector should be more than capable of dealing with many problems at the same time, tax payers are paying for some people to provide a service and paying some people to do nothing, it would be much better if we only pay people that provide a service to the community and the minority of people that are incapable of any kind of work due to their disabilities.

[Olive]

If people are of independent means as someone would be with savings of course they should go on holiday. This is not the debate, Tebbitt has made this statement aimed largely at young people who are out of work and people whose work ethic needs changing.

 

No they should not work with criminals, they should be encouraged to see that this work is important, as it is, litter is both unsightly and a health hazard, the removal of weeds and renovation of public green areas would benefit us all

 

That's a better way of looking at it. I wouldn't have so much of a problem if it was a positive thing.

The thing is, it won't be, it'll be punitive. Any proud sole who has slogged their guts out for years, paid their NI, has experience and skills a-plenty, but finds themselves out of a job for any period of time, will be lumped in with everyone else, labelled as scroungers, made to feel like they are worthless.

 

It upsets me that there are folk that see this as such a black and white situation, as if there are only "tax payers" and "benefit claimants". There will be lots of "claimers" who, who over the years, have paid more in NI than many of the self righteous "tax payers". What right deos someone who is currently employed but only worked for the last 10 years, look down on someone who is currently unemployed but has paid taxes for the last 20 years?

[Cyclone]

The government and public sector should be more than capable of dealing with many problems at the same time, tax payers are paying for some people to provide a service and paying some people to do nothing, it would be much better if we only pay people that provide a service to the community and the minority of people that are incapable of any kind of work due to their disabilities.

 

They aren't "paying people to do nothing". They are providing a minimal safety net to provide support whilst people are temporarily out of work and actively looking for it.

 

Amazing how using different language to describe the same thing can make it sound less pejorative isn't it.

[SavannahP]

They aren't "paying people to do nothing". They are providing a minimal safety net to provide support whilst people are temporarily out of work and actively looking for it.

 

Amazing how using different language to describe the same thing can make it sound less pejorative isn't it.

 

I should have said giving them money for doing nothing instead of paying them money for doing nothing, and the safety net should be a temporary job until they find a more permanent job and not just money for doing nothing.

[Bonzo77]

Thought I'd post this video on this thread too as it's relevant.........

 

[Cyclone]

I should have said giving them money for doing nothing instead of paying them money for doing nothing, and the safety net should be a temporary job until they find a more permanent job and not just money for doing nothing.

 

For the vast majority of people it is temporary.

 

I'm sure you could find some figures if you looked.

[ricgem2002]

I should have said giving them money for doing nothing instead of paying them money for doing nothing, and the safety net should be a temporary job until they find a more permanent job and not just money for doing nothing.

so hows that going to work with companies using workfare/zero hours contracts/agency work type jobs ? why should anyone lose the safety net of benefits only to be employed for a couple of weeks and start the procedure again ? turn your attention to these companies in giving people proper jobs and not pie in the sky schemes that don't work .

[Ithink-doyou]

.

 

Surely if there is a need for weeds to be pulled then people should be employed to do it

 

 

Surely, if they get money - they should earn it.

Pull weeds, or forget their dole money - seems fair to me.

[Frederick1]

So all you tax payers would prefer to pay them for doing nothing???

[tinfoilhat]

so hows that going to work with companies using workfare/zero hours contracts/agency work type jobs ? why should anyone lose the safety net of benefits only to be employed for a couple of weeks and start the procedure again ? turn your attention to these companies in giving people proper jobs and not pie in the sky schemes that don't work .

 

No. If you force companies to only offer permanent contracts and no zero hours or agency, they just won't take anyone on, just lean on existing staff harder. Make it easier for people to do a bit of temp work then sign back on if necessary without being skint for weeks whilst JCplus faffs about.

 

---------- Post added 25-10-2014 at 12:54 ----------

 

So all you tax payers would prefer to pay them for doing nothing???

 

It's the welfare state mucker. We've had it for decades and it should be kept, not used as excuse to bully people. It's funny because if you go the job centre and say you want to do a bit of voluntary work or god forbid try and go to college and educate yourself they start pulling benefits.