Benefits Idea

[the_dork]

Whatever amount of benefit payment received, including rent, free school meals etc is realistically valued.

There is a govt prepared list of employers, large firms and smaller local firms who have use for more staff. These are made available so everyone on benefits has as much choice as possible in who they might be interested in eg. office work, gardening, retail etc. They have to go for interviews with these firms with a view to working hours at £5-7/hour that relate to their benefits. If not needed on particular days they could be transferred to other firms or alternatively have to report in even if there’s not much to do (as many regular employees do). If individuals are excessively poorly disciplined or simply refuse to turn up or be interviewed, we say ‘fine you’re choice, but you’re not entitled to any benefits’

I don’t really see who loses

-benefits claimants-get the social side of work and a chance to check out different industries, pad up their CV’s on a relatively flexible basis.

-employers-essentially get a free workforce (bar training) for tasks which they might not normally get marginal benefit from (eg. my office has tons of filing which simply doesn’t get done and it wouldn’t be worth paying anyone minimum wage to do)

-taxpayers-less resentment at funding dossers and see most businesses become more productive, possibly with effects in terms of lower costs though this might be marginal

-government-can increase overall production

There is obviously a degree of flexibility-you might say only for claimants after say 3 months. Someone on the JSA, say £75 a week with no rent paid etc. would only have to do between 10-15 hours to make up the benefits so you’re not asking for ‘unpaid work’.

I admit wage levels for anything semi-skilled are likely to be lower than they might otherwise be, but are there any other drawbacks to this?

[Guest X-QUORK]

I see no problem with the principle behind it, but I'm not sure where all these vacancies are to take people (even for free).

[daniel stallion]

Whatever amount of benefit payment received, including rent, free school meals etc is realistically valued.

There is a govt prepared list of employers, large firms and smaller local firms who have use for more staff. These are made available so everyone on benefits has as much choice as possible in who they might be interested in eg. office work, gardening, retail etc. They have to go for interviews with these firms with a view to working hours at £5-7/hour that relate to their benefits. If not needed on particular days they could be transferred to other firms or alternatively have to report in even if there’s not much to do (as many regular employees do). If individuals are excessively poorly disciplined or simply refuse to turn up or be interviewed, we say ‘fine you’re choice, but you’re not entitled to any benefits’

I don’t really see who loses

-benefits claimants-get the social side of work and a chance to check out different industries, pad up their CV’s on a relatively flexible basis.

-employers-essentially get a free workforce (bar training) for tasks which they might not normally get marginal benefit from (eg. my office has tons of filing which simply doesn’t get done and it wouldn’t be worth paying anyone minimum wage to do)

-taxpayers-less resentment at funding dossers and see most businesses become more productive, possibly with effects in terms of lower costs though this might be marginal

-government-can increase overall production

There is obviously a degree of flexibility-you might say only for claimants after say 3 months. Someone on the JSA, say £75 a week with no rent paid etc. would only have to do between 10-15 hours to make up the benefits so you’re not asking for ‘unpaid work’.

I admit wage levels for anything semi-skilled are likely to be lower than they might otherwise be, but are there any other drawbacks to this?

I suspect it would be totally impractical.

- How would the list of appropriate tasks be compiled, for every single business?

- Who would asses if the tasks proposed by companies that were part of the scheme constitute tasks which did not warrant a 'normal' job? How?

- Who would monitor tasks being undertaken to ensure that they did not stray in to 'normal jobs'? How?

- Who would resolve grievances from those who claimed their job was lost as a result and those who claimed they were being asked to do unreasonable tasks?

- Would companies be liable for the employee?

Without very complicated, stringent checks and balances you would end up with a 'free' labour force at the expense of genuine employees.

....Ad infinitum.

[Bossybabe]

I am pretty sure the unions wouldn't like the idea of employing 'free' staff.

[the_dork]

You'd end up with these companies not hiring staff because they can get them for free which will increase the number of unemployed people. Making them do volunteer work for charities or community service would be better.

ah yes, this is the best objection I think. Perhaps only allowing a certain number of these employees for different businesses depending on size (eg one spot in small florist shop, dozens in large warehouse?). If the benefit rates paid (by the government remember, not the employer) weren't so different from other staff there wouldn't be much complaint from other workers I don't think

[OnionTerror]

There's a sort of scheme that already exists, called New Deal. If you've been unemployed for 6 months (under 24) or 18 months (25 plus) then the unemployed have to go on a 13 week work experience scheme..

[D.C.]

Whatever amount of benefit payment received, including rent, free school meals etc is realistically valued.

There is a govt prepared list of employers, large firms and smaller local firms who have use for more staff. These are made available so everyone on benefits has as much choice as possible in who they might be interested in eg. office work, gardening, retail etc. They have to go for interviews with these firms with a view to working hours at £5-7/hour that relate to their benefits. If not needed on particular days they could be transferred to other firms or alternatively have to report in even if there's not much to do (as many regular employees do). If individuals are excessively poorly disciplined or simply refuse to turn up or be interviewed, we say 'fine you're choice, but you're not entitled to any benefits'

Oh dear.

Another workfare thread.

Even worse, a force people to turn up even when there is no makework and the entire exercise is completely pointless or make the feckers starve.

Right now paying people the bare minimum to do nothing doesn't require supervision.

If you want them to do something, you have to employ someone to supervise them. That costs more money.

I don't really see who loses

-benefits claimants-get the social side of work and a chance to check out different industries, pad up their CV's on a relatively flexible basis.

-employers-essentially get a free workforce (bar training) for tasks which they might not normally get marginal benefit from (eg. my office has tons of filing which simply doesn't get done and it wouldn't be worth paying anyone minimum wage to do)

Yes that is called slavery, you say work or starve to death, the slavemasters say work or get beaten to death. I'm struggling to see the difference here?

Perhaps your office needs to learn how to use a computer, no more filing...

-taxpayers-less resentment at funding dossers and see most businesses become more productive, possibly with effects in terms of lower costs though this might be marginal

-government-can increase overall production

It doesn't increase productivity, it decreases it, that is why communism falls flat on it's face. Forcing millions people to farm the fields at gun point isn't as efficient over time as motivating people to invent a tractor to improve efficiency.

Why automate when you have free slaves?

There is obviously a degree of flexibility-you might say only for claimants after say 3 months. Someone on the JSA, say £75 a week with no rent paid etc. would only have to do between 10-15 hours to make up the benefits so you're not asking for 'unpaid work'.

I admit wage levels for anything semi-skilled are likely to be lower than they might otherwise be, but are there any other drawbacks to this?

The private sector, public sector or voluntary sector already do almost every imaginable job.

If you introduce your 8 million strong slave labour force to the market it simply destroys industries, making more people unemployed. The more unemployed you create the more work you have to find for them to do and the more private sector employees get laid off. It's a vicious circle that ends up with everybody unemployed working for subsistence.

But you scream, there is plenty of things that aren't being done! Look at the graffiti!

Well when you finish frothing at the mouth and *****ing over the latest Daily Mail article, consider this google search. That is right you have just destroyed an entire industry of thousands of people. they are all now unemployed.

Before they were highly motivated private sector workers. Now they have to do the same job as slaves for starvation rations. Productivity has collapsed. Screaming at people, whipping them and then threatening them with death by starvation is not a very good motivation to work hard it turns out. Hence why North Korea isn't the world's leading industrial powerhouse.

Sorry 'the Dork', but you are being a 'Dork'.

Stop reading the Daily Mail and start studying some economics.