Workfare Verses Zero Hours Contracts.

[wonderpup]

Ok- so you have a choice;

1) Work for your dole, this provides a secure income, zero pressure at work, no fear of redundancy and things like rent paid via housing benefit.

2) Work under a zero hours contract- this provides a marginally better income (possibly) but comes with massive insecurity, stress at work and less access to welfare benefits depending on what you earn.

I think the Tories might be shocked that for many people working for their dole will actually be more attractive than trying to survive in the minimum wage jobs market on a zero hours contract- after all, a secure job for life paying nearly as much with zero stress and hassle- it's not that bad an offer considering the alternative.

Ironic if workfare comes to be viewed as the better option to the brave new world they are trying to create for the low paid british worker.

In future they may have to threaten not to put people on workfare- they may have to threaten to kick them off it.

[Guest eight]

In future they may have to threaten not to put people on workfare- they may have to threaten to kick them off it.

It's been a while since I read it, but isn't one of the "jokes" of Brave New World that the thing everybody considers to be the biggest threat (being exiled to an island, IIRC) was actually the best possible outcome they could hope for?

[sombreroloco]

Work for your dole, this provides a secure income, zero pressure at work, no fear of redundancy and things like rent paid via housing benefit.

Not true, you have the pressure of losing the dole if you don't bend backwards to Poundland.

[sombreroloco]

Duplicate post, sorry.

Edited October 2, 2013 by sombreroloco

[SNACR]

There's endless public sector non-jobbers already in category 1, not sure they're going to like the competiton much.

If they're young enough there's always the borrow your dole money, in the form of a student loan, option.

[@contradevian]

It's been a while since I read it, but isn't one of the "jokes" of Brave New World that the thing everybody considers to be the biggest threat (being exiled to an island, IIRC) was actually the best possible outcome they could hope for?

Makes you wonder if in Dickensian England people committed crimes to be exiled to Australia and be free of this rentier sh*thole.

[wonderpup]

Not true, you have the pressure of losing the dole if you don't bend backwards to Poundland.

Workfare is not the same thing as those short term job placement schemes in places like poundland- it's more akin to the kinds of schemes used for community service types.

If they tried to do the poundland thing on a large scale the sheer absurdity of replacing paid workers with state slaves would have the thing shut down immediately.

I have some experience of similar schemes from being unemployed in the 90's and my observation was that the prevailing culture quickly becomes that of the 'inmates' rather than the lofty ideals spouted by the suits- and believe me when I tell you that while in theory people could be sanctioned for not working hard enough ect, in reality this was impossible to enforce since it would require everyone involved to be sanctioned simultaneously resulting in the shutdown of the scheme- which would mean those running it would lose their jobs.

So it's entirely possible that a life on workfare in a relaxed atmosphere of the 'we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us' style will be far more attractive than a rat race existence in a zero hours minimum wage nightmare landscape where you never know from week to week how much you will be earning or if you will even have a job in the near future.

[South Lorne]

Ok- so you have a choice;

1) Work for your dole, this provides a secure income, zero pressure at work, no fear of redundancy and things like rent paid via housing benefit.

2) Work under a zero hours contract- this provides a marginally better income (possibly) but comes with massive insecurity, stress at work and less access to welfare benefits depending on what you earn.

I think the Tories might be shocked that for many people working for their dole will actually be more attractive than trying to survive in the minimum wage jobs market on a zero hours contract- after all, a secure job for life paying nearly as much with zero stress and hassle- it's not that bad an offer considering the alternative.

Ironic if workfare comes to be viewed as the better option to the brave new world they are trying to create for the low paid british worker.

In future they may have to threaten not to put people on workfare- they may have to threaten to kick them off it.

...agreed ..the scenario is...the state will become employers for the unemployed ...

[wonderpup]

...agreed ..the scenario is...the state will become employers for the unemployed ...

The state in this case being both cause and effect. The more they try to increase private sector employment at the low end by shifting the risks of employment away from employers and on to the employee, the more attractive a secure benefit funded income becomes to that employee- at least he knows he will have a degree of income security- something less and less available to the low paid worker.

[Tonkers]

...agreed ..the scenario is...the state will become employers for the unemployed ...

Ha ha ha, this would be kind of OK if they even knew it, perhaps they have already tipped, as one, into narccistic rage.

[durhamborn]

The state in this case being both cause and effect. The more they try to increase private sector employment at the low end by shifting the risks of employment away from employers and on to the employee, the more attractive a secure benefit funded income becomes to that employee- at least he knows he will have a degree of income security- something less and less available to the low paid worker.

That's just what is happening.Plus all that free time can be spent at the allotment growing free food.Working odd jobs etc.Thats why the government have announced the workfare 35 hour scheme.Of course its easy to escape that as well,,here show.

Even if UC comes in self employed will have a years grace before the 35 hour x NMW rule applies.So after 2 years unemployment go self employed,,the benefits will be the same.At end of year go back unemployed.Two years away from the scheme again.

That's the thing with welfare reform.Unless its all joined up and done by people who really understand welfare it never works.

The fact is the UK now has an economy where there is very little point working if any for 30%-50%+ of the population.

People know that,

[bomberbrown]

1380755509[/url]' post='909403214']

That's just what is happening.Plus all that free time can be spent at the allotment growing free food.Working odd jobs etc.Thats why the government have announced the workfare 35 hour scheme.Of course its easy to escape that as well,,here show.

Even if UC comes in self employed will have a years grace before the 35 hour x NMW rule applies.So after 2 years unemployment go self employed,,the benefits will be the same.At end of year go back unemployed.Two years away from the scheme again.

That's the thing with welfare reform.Unless its all joined up and done by people who really understand welfare it never works.

The fact is the UK now has an economy where there is very little point working if any for 30%-50%+ of the population.

People know that,

I wondered if you could expand on this bit. Have the benefits/rules changed recently regarding being self employed and the stare benefits you could expect to receive. I cite one example of a 'self employed' big issue seller recently who was better off doing this and getting tax credits, housing benefit etc than being on the dole. And since the hours worked as a 'self employed' big issue seller couldn't really be measured, it was a no brainier.

Are you saying this 'loop hole' has been closed now?

[byron78]

I wondered if you could expand on this bit. Have the benefits/rules changed recently regarding being self employed and the stare benefits you could expect to receive. I cite one example of a 'self employed' big issue seller recently who was better off doing this and getting tax credits, housing benefit etc than being on the dole. And since the hours worked as a 'self employed' big issue seller couldn't really be measured, it was a no brainier.

Are you saying this 'loop hole' has been closed now?

Hope not.

Shows great initiative that and I can't see them happily doing that forever.

I actually started off business in a similar way. Tax credits and HB were my safety net 7/8 years ago. I'm a top rater now (could switch to a company structure and be much better off, but happy to pay tax back into a system that helped me).

They're probably getting £150 a week tops in total benefit if outside London.

I'd much rather 20 people doing the above than 1 rich landowning family getting the same figure as all 20 of them in CAP subsidies (like the 3K a week IDS's family get).

Until we cut the CAP at the top I'll not kick those holding out theirs at the bottom for benefits.

Edited October 3, 2013 by byron78

[durhamborn]

Hope not.

Shows great initiative that and I can't see them happily doing that forever.

I actually started off business in a similar way. Tax credits and HB were my safety net 7/8 years ago. I'm a top rater now (could switch to a company structure and be much better off, but happy to pay tax back into a system that helped me).

They're probably getting £150 a week tops in total benefit if outside London.

I'd much rather 20 people doing the above than 1 rich landowning family getting the same figure as all 20 of them in CAP subsidies (like the 3K a week IDS's family get).

Until we cut the CAP at the top I'll not kick those holding out theirs at the bottom for benefits.

Im the same Byron,,i set up and the £52 a week tax credits were gold dust to me.Without them I wouldn't now have a 6 figure turnover business.

Last year if I include all tax I paid including VAT,import duty etc I paid £40k+(not counting my personal tax/duties etc) in tax.Tax credits paid me £3600 all in but without them at the time my business would of sunk at the start.

Im very happy to pay that tax now and very glad if like you say 20 people get it who set up and try to grow a business.

However under Universal Credit the grace period is still one year before they count you as earning NMW x 35 and I think that's still quite good.Id prefer it to be 18 months however.

Open ended as it is now was open to abuse,though it was probably the only part of tax credits that half worked.

[byron78]

Im the same Byron,,i set up and the £52 a week tax credits were gold dust to me.Without them I wouldn't now have a 6 figure turnover business.

Last year if I include all tax I paid including VAT,import duty etc I paid £40k+(not counting my personal tax/duties etc) in tax.Tax credits paid me £3600 all in but without them at the time my business would of sunk at the start.

Im very happy to pay that tax now and very glad if like you say 20 people get it who set up and try to grow a business.

However under Universal Credit the grace period is still one year before they count you as earning NMW x 35 and I think that's still quite good.Id prefer it to be 18 months however.

Open ended as it is now was open to abuse,though it was probably the only part of tax credits that half worked.

Yep. I think it largely depends where you are in the country and what you do as well.

It supports a lot of local business people round my way in a heavily seasonal area (tourists = summer trade but little winter trade), and I can see many folding completely if the Tax Credit NMW thing does get fully inforced under Universal Credit.

I'd keep paying the basic Working Tax Credit to folks personally, but just stop folk being able to claim additional benefits on top (like HB) after the 18 months. That would soon weed out people playing the system and those with a workable (if niche) business, without the need to turf loads of people back onto the dole if they can't make a business pay NMW inside a year and the administration costs of such turfing (took me at least 2 years before taking off/getting a NMW back - it's an oddity of some rural areas, whereby people don't seem to "trust" businesses unless they're established. The new rules would have scuppered me and I might still be on the dole if they'd existed then. There was also an odd point where I needed assistance, took on a staff member on NMW, and was earning well under it myself - how will that work under the proposed Universal Credit system? Business definitely wouldn't have worked out the way it has for both me and the tax man if it existed in its proposed form then. It's a simplistic approach to something that in reality has many complex variables as far as I can make out. Will appeal to simpletons I'm sure, but it's potentially making things worse not better).

Again, I can't see the logic in "farmers" like IDS and his family getting 3K a week in subsidies, when we're seriously considering nuking lots of small start ups because they cost £50 a week in subsidies.

Edited October 3, 2013 by byron78

[Guest eight]

Im the same Byron,,i set up and the £52 a week tax credits were gold dust to me.Without them I wouldn't now have a 6 figure turnover business.

Last year if I include all tax I paid including VAT,import duty etc I paid £40k+(not counting my personal tax/duties etc) in tax.Tax credits paid me £3600 all in but without them at the time my business would of sunk at the start.

Im very happy to pay that tax now and very glad if like you say 20 people get it who set up and try to grow a business.

However under Universal Credit the grace period is still one year before they count you as earning NMW x 35 and I think that's still quite good.Id prefer it to be 18 months however.

Open ended as it is now was open to abuse,though it was probably the only part of tax credits that half worked.

One of the best arguments for a citizen's income ever. You were one of the lucky ones who made it, many more might make the leap if they knew they had a fallback position.

[byron78]

One of the best arguments for a citizen's income ever. You were one of the lucky ones who made it, many more might make the leap if they knew they had a fallback position.

I think that's key.

Nothing wrong with benefits that encourage

risk and innovative, AND don't punish failure (as this can stop people taking risks in the first place).

[wonderpup]

I think that's key.

Nothing wrong with benefits that encourage

risk and innovative, AND don't punish failure (as this can stop people taking risks in the first place).

The problem is that the people running the system cannot decide if they are in the business of helping people or punishing them- so they oscillate between the two positions resulting in an incoherent mess of quasi moral bullshite combined with half hearted efforts to be genuinely progressive.

Lets face it- any system of this sort is going to be abused by a minority- maybe instead of gearing the entire thing to stop them it might make more sense to ignore them and try to design a system that would genuinely help those who would choose to do something positive if given a chance.

Instead we have a quasi gestapo mentality in which all claiments are guilty until proven otherwise. The reality is that if you were unemployed and wanted help the very last place to go to would be the 'Job' Centre- it's only a matter of time now until waterboarding new claiments becomes part of the SOP.

[@contradevian]

Again, I can't see the logic in "farmers" like IDS and his family getting 3K a week in subsidies, when we're seriously considering nuking lots of small start ups because they cost £50 a week in subsidies.

+1

[durhamborn]

The problem is that the people running the system cannot decide if they are in the business of helping people or punishing them- so they oscillate between the two positions resulting in an incoherent mess of quasi moral bullshite combined with half hearted efforts to be genuinely progressive.

Lets face it- any system of this sort is going to be abused by a minority- maybe instead of gearing the entire thing to stop them it might make more sense to ignore them and try to design a system that would genuinely help those who would choose to do something positive if given a chance.

Instead we have a quasi gestapo mentality in which all claiments are guilty until proven otherwise. The reality is that if you were unemployed and wanted help the very last place to go to would be the 'Job' Centre- it's only a matter of time now until waterboarding new claiments becomes part of the SOP.

I think that is why welfare reform is in such a mess.They simply cant decide if benefits are for punishing people or helping them.

The Job Centre as it stands now stops people getting on.It really does.I pretended to be sick so that I got the same money without signing on while I set my business up because the job centre were trying to send me on all kinds of worthless courses .

I think welfare can be reformed and the cost can be cut.

To me welfare needs to pay out much less to people but allow them to earn on top of it without constant jumping through hoops.

Less money,but less conditions.

As it stands welfare pays out far too much to many people,far too little to others and bullies the ones who get far too little because of the bill for the ones who get far too much.

[byron78]

The problem is that the people running the system cannot decide if they are in the business of helping people or punishing them- so they oscillate between the two positions resulting in an incoherent mess of quasi moral bullshite combined with half hearted efforts to be genuinely progressive.

Lets face it- any system of this sort is going to be abused by a minority- maybe instead of gearing the entire thing to stop them it might make more sense to ignore them and try to design a system that would genuinely help those who would choose to do something positive if given a chance.

Instead we have a quasi gestapo mentality in which all claiments are guilty until proven otherwise. The reality is that if you were unemployed and wanted help the very last place to go to would be the 'Job' Centre- it's only a matter of time now until waterboarding new claiments becomes part of the SOP.

I agree.

Also the language is all wrong.

Benefits should be about making sure the money gets to the people who need it, or can be used to educate and train folk to get on in life.

All this punishing and extra administration (often handed to private companies) is costing billions, and I can't see how the job market has got better over the past 3/4 years.

People are just "hidden" from the stats (signed over to private companies/work fare/or zero houred), swept under the carpet, abandoned, priced out of going onto further education, and full on demonised at the moment (worse still, the only people getting work appear to be getting jobs as Estate Agents).

I know at least half a dozen people out of work panicked out of trying to make a go of it on their own by WTC horror stories as well ("we've decided your business isn't viable. Despite you clearly not having any money, we need that £2000 back").

Stupid counterproductive nonsense from a party that simply don't understand how being on the bottom rung of life works.

Edited October 3, 2013 by byron78