Tebbit says young unemployed should pull weeds for benefits.

[Jonny5]

*tumbleweed*

[Mecky]

I don't doubt that. There are a section of society who will refuse to work and will rely on benifits ad infinitum. Do you think this lot will do a decent job of the weeding? Will they be supervised - more money. Why they lose benefits for missing a weed or doing a crap job?

 

There are a section who won't work. That isn't everyone who is unemployed. Pay the shirkers benifits and stop wasting anymore time and money and give that time and money to the unemployed who are trying to get on or get work in the form of better training etc.

 

Quite right, I think people try and tar people with the same brush; no doubt they get their opinions from the daily hate newspapers. The truth is there will always be people who don't want to and won't work and I'm very much mistaken if the government wants to been seen in an international light as persecuting their nationals, especially since the government has lecturered other countries on doing the same. The government is already treading a thin line with it's treatment of large and wide sections of the population ranging from the disabled to the armed forces

[willman]

If work needs to be done, why can't the employer pay people to do it rather than rely on slave labour?

 

Lots of people are happy to work for free for a charity but would you be willing to work for free for the council, or Tesco, or HSBC? If your boss was paid £19 an hour to supply a cleaner would you be happy to work for him for free?

 

That would be a charity with a highly paid CEO and other well paid staff.

 

I understand why people volunteer but the "employer" is still recieving a free service to make profits.

Pulling up weeds is working fore the Govt, the ones that are already paying you a "wage" to sit at home.

I wouldn't agree with paid jobs being replaced just community based jobs, like woodland clearing, or stile repairs where it is simply an extra pair of hands which is often done by a volunteer.

[Cyclone]

The point he is making is perfectly valid. It is inhuman and cruel to allow people, particularly young people to sit at home doing nothing and drawing benefits. All UK citizens should be required to work as long as they are capable of doing so.

 

We have laws requiring that anyone working is paid minimum wage. I can't see why this shouldn't apply.

 

Of course that would be a pointless and expensive attempt to ensure full employment by the government, massively expanding state employment, which has to be paid for out of the net income generated from those who don't work for the state.

[charmer]

Let's get something straight shall we, all the unemployed, regardless of age, go on courses continuously. After three months it's for 15 hours a week, then if they haven't found work then, it's for 30 hours a week.

 

Putting everyone on a course was to weed out those who were working and signing on. No show, no dole.

 

No they don't. I know numerous unemployed people and none of them are on courses continually. A very good friend has been on benefits for about two years. He has been on two courses, lasting a total of three weeks.

 

Do you genuinely think our friends from the bankers draft are preparing for their courses?

[SavannahP]

We have laws requiring that anyone working is paid minimum wage. I can't see why this shouldn't apply.

 

Of course that would be a pointless and expensive attempt to ensure full employment by the government, massively expanding state employment, which has to be paid for out of the net income generated from those who don't work for the state.

 

Why would it be more expensive? its a simple exchange, claimants get money for doing nothing and that has to be paid for out of the net income generated from those who don't work for the state. So instead of paying them to do nothing we pay them for doing something, there are no extra costs involved.

[Alan Ladd]

We have laws requiring that anyone working is paid minimum wage. I can't see why this shouldn't apply.

 

Of course that would be a pointless and expensive attempt to ensure full employment by the government, massively expanding state employment, which has to be paid for out of the net income generated from those who don't work for the state.

 

Not quite my argument, I expect any person who is capable of doing so should work for their benefits within the current expenditure.

 

I would form an army of litter pickers, another targeted at canal clearance, a further team could be trained as meeters and greeters in our town and city centers, keeping the place clean and tidy, trained to deal with visitors. No doubt there would be other opportunities.

 

Those who refuse to get involved should have their dole stopped and be issued with food stamps, until they get their minds right.

 

Those who do get involved, create for themselves a CV, improve their communication skills, get into good habits re punctuality, reliability cleanliness, their confidence improves. They become employable.

 

What's the downside?

[Cyclone]

You would put all the litter pickers out of work then.

 

And you'd either have the people on benefits work for about 10 hours a week, or you'd have to increase the amount you were giving them.

Oh, and when exactly should they be applying for jobs if you want them working full time? And interviews, I assume they get the day off in order to prepare, dress appropriately and attend an interview?

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 10:26 ----------

 

Why would it be more expensive? its a simple exchange, claimants get money for doing nothing and that has to be paid for out of the net income generated from those who don't work for the state. So instead of paying them to do nothing we pay them for doing something, there are no extra costs involved.

 

It's expensive because paying a full time minimum wage to someone is more expensive than giving them JSA.

 

They don't get money for nothing as it stands. They get money only whilst actively seeking work.

[Bonzo77]

Not quite my argument, I expect any person who is capable of doing so should work for their benefits within the current expenditure.

 

I would form an army of litter pickers, another targeted at canal clearance, a further team could be trained as meeters and greeters in our town and city centers, keeping the place clean and tidy, trained to deal with visitors. No doubt there would be other opportunities.

 

Those who refuse to get involved should have their dole stopped and be issued with food stamps, until they get their minds right.

 

Those who do get involved, create for themselves a CV, improve their communication skills, get into good habits re punctuality, reliability cleanliness, their confidence improves. They become employable.

 

What's the downside?

 

Why not just create jobs for the above things you've mentioned? They all sound like good ideas. Lets get everyone in work, happy and looking after their local area.

 

(oh noooo, I've used the word 'happy', I didn't mean to sound so liberal!!)

[Cyclone]

Full employment is not really achievable, nor economically desirable.

 

If everyone is employed, how do you grow a business and hire anyone?