People on Benefits should have to give time to community

[Rich]

I agree with this post.

 

The only answer that i can think of to stop people relying on benefit, is some sort of sliding scale. If you havent found work in 6 months, your benefits should be cut.

 

The current method of people having to attend job interviews, just wastes employers/job centres time, as i have seen myself, when people just turn up and quite deliberatly make no effort whatsoever.

 

ash

 

What's the point in putting myself through the stress of job interviews when I know for a fact I'll be passed over in favour of someone who is able bodied, doesn't have aspergers, and doesn't need support to be able to do the job?! I wouldn't mind but I could do certain jobs standing on my flipping head! But because I have a disability they don't want to know!

[D2J]

What's the point in putting myself through the stress of job interviews when I know for a fact I'll be passed over in favour of someone who is able bodied, doesn't have aspergers, and doesn't need support to be able to do the job?!

 

For pride and satisfaction Rich Sell yourself on, let them know your disability won't restrict your ability to do the job in question. By not trying you are letting people walk all over you and creating the impression you don't try or care.

 

[BlueAngel]

Do you mean people that claim benefits that have NEVER worked?

 

I work full time and I'm 4 months pregnant when I go on maternity leave I'll have to claim some benefits. I've worked since leaving school (6 years) I've paid enough tax and NI over the years to have a helping hand when I need it.

[JoeP]

I do a fair amount of voluntary work and it should remain that.

 

I've been a trusstee of a couple of charities, and I don't want someone working for me who's there puurely because they get their benefits stopped if they're not.

 

And if the Government could find work for these people, then they're jobs that need doing anyway, which must be worthy of proper status as 'real' jobs.

 

And if they're 'make work' jobs, why not go the whole hog and bring back mailbag making, Oakum picking and the work house?

[Hagar]

What's the point in putting myself through the stress of job interviews when I know for a fact I'll be passed over in favour of someone who is able bodied, doesn't have aspergers, and doesn't need support to be able to do the job?! I wouldn't mind but I could do certain jobs standing on my flipping head! But because I have a disability they don't want to know!

You say in the this post that you can do the job standing on your head, but you also say that you need support to do the job.

 

Are you able to see this from an employer's perspective? Companies exist to trade and make profit, that's what makes the world go round whether you like it or not. If there is an able-bodied person who, for sake of argument, is equally qualified and experienced to you but does not need any support, they MUST give that person the job, or they would be failing to do their own jobs.

 

I'd recommend that you look to the public sector for employment. The civil service and councils are very proactive in keeping their minority recruitment figures to target, and will sometimes actively seek to recruit disabled people to boost their levels of minority employees so they can claim to be equal opportunities employers. Be realistic about what you apply for, and you should have a chance of securing a job even if you're a bit of an arse.

 

What you mustn't do is give up - there are plenty of people with your condition who do have work, so don't look to blame anybody, employers included, for your own misfortune. Be positive; on SF you come over as being very embittered and if just a little of that is visible to an employer you'll never do well at interview.

[CockneyMafia]

People on job seekers allowance (the clue is in the title) should have to provide proof of their efforts in looking for work each week. Letters sent out, rejection letters etc. registration with agencies.

 

Finding a job is a job in itself, (if people are doing it properly)

 

I spent 3 months on the dole after leaving uni.

 

Not one of the sods in the queue was asked to provide proof of looking for work. Which is just as well, as they invariably wouldn't have any.

 

There are a hardcore of maybe 100,000 - 250,000 people in this country who have no intention of ever working, and are quite happy to sit in the pub all day ****ing my tax contributions up the wall.

 

It is these feckless individuals who need targeting.

[Hagar]

And if they're 'make work' jobs, why not go the whole hog and bring back mailbag making, Oakum picking and the work house?

Why not indeed - there'd be labourers, decorators, gardeners, landscapers, odd-job men and goodness knows what other self-employed cash market tradesmen signing off the dole by the thousands. The same might apply to the equally numerous hordes of sink estate chavs whose income is generated by a combination of petty theft and drug dealing.

[theripsaw]

I do a fair amount of voluntary work and it should remain that.

 

I've been a trusstee of a couple of charities, and I don't want someone working for me who's there puurely because they get their benefits stopped if they're not.

 

And if the Government could find work for these people, then they're jobs that need doing anyway, which must be worthy of proper status as 'real' jobs.

 

And if they're 'make work' jobs, why not go the whole hog and bring back mailbag making, Oakum picking and the work house?

 

Govt cant afford to create jobs for everything that needs doing. Scarce resources and all that.

 

Surely as a charity, run solely for the benefit of those it was established to help, any free assistance would be better than none whether they want to work there or not. Trouble is too many charities nowadays are run for the employees at the top who earn very tasty salaries.

[JoeP]

Govt cant afford to create jobs for everything that needs doing. Scarce resources and all that.

 

Surely as a charity, run solely for the benefit of those it was established to help, any free assistance would be better than none whether they want to work there or not. Trouble is too many charities nowadays are run for the employees at the top who earn very tasty salaries.

 

No. The last people you want working with you in a charity is people who are not willing.

 

The charities I'm involved in are usually run by people who get barely above minimum wage anyway - perhaps you should look at local charities rather than the big ones. I don't want to waste time and resources having to nursemaid someone who'd there against their will.

 

A charity is there to do IT'S work, not act as an adjunct to social services.

 

And as for 'Scarce Resources and all that' - if the job needs doing, it needs paying for. If you can't be arsed to budget for it, then perhaps you need to consider why it's not regarded as important.

 

And you can also guarantee that the red-tape associated with such a project would be enormous. It's not a well thought through idea, IMO - just another knee jerk reaction agsint people perceived as 'work shy'. There are SOME genuine workshy people out there, and the solution is simple - stop their benefits.

 

Don't mess about with this 'social service' approach - just stop the benefits. Not having a fall back position has always made sure that I find work.

[theripsaw]

No. The last people you want working with you in a charity is people who are not willing.

 

The charities I'm involved in are usually run by people who get barely above minimum wage anyway - perhaps you should look at local charities rather than the big ones. I don't want to waste time and resources having to nursemaid someone who'd there against their will.

 

A charity is there to do IT'S work, not act as an adjunct to social services.

 

And as for 'Scarce Resources and all that' - if the job needs doing, it needs paying for. If you can't be arsed to budget for it, then perhaps you need to consider why it's not regarded as important.

 

And you can also guarantee that the red-tape associated with such a project would be enormous. It's not a well thought through idea, IMO - just another knee jerk reaction agsint people perceived as 'work shy'. There are SOME genuine workshy people out there, and the solution is simple - stop their benefits.

 

Don't mess about with this 'social service' approach - just stop the benefits. Not having a fall back position has always made sure that I find work.

 

Fair enough, i never suggested they should work for charities anyway. I want to see them in the outdoors, doing menial tasks that dont get done by any other means. Preferably wearing a uniform to identify them.