In UK, Work-shy will be 'pushed' into working for free by welfare revolution

[웃 910]

Work-shy will be 'pushed' into working for free by welfare revolution

People who do not try hard enough to find a job will be forced to work for free or lose their benefits, the Government will announce this week.

In the most radical clampdown on the work-shy yet, Iain Duncan Smith will announce that the unemployed will be found compulsory 30 hour-a-week work placements and if they fail to turn up they will lose their Jobseekers' Allowance for at least three months.

The Welfare Secretary will announce the move as part of a groundbreaking package of measures aimed at reforming the benefit culture to "make work pay".

Launching a White Paper this week, Mr Duncan Smith will announce that a universal credit is planned as a simpler method of administering benefit and rewarding those who choose to find work.

But there will be harsh sanctions for those who refuse to co-operate.

In one of the most controversial measures, the Government will bring in compulsory work placements, whereby unemployed people who are judged to be failing in their efforts to find work will be given an "extra push".

Those forced to take up Work Activity Placements will be expected to spend 30 hours a week for four weeks at a time in a local business or project benefiting the community.

If they do not attend or fail to complete the placement a "significant" financial sanction will be imposed, such as withholding Jobseeker's Allowance for at least 3 months, government insiders said.

One source close to the plans said: "We know there are still some jobseekers out there who need an extra push to get them into the mindset of being in the working environment.

"This is all about getting them back into a working routine which in turn makes them a much more appealing prospect for an employer looking to fill a vacancy, and more confident when they enter the workplace.

"The goal is to break the habit of worklessness."

Some five million people are currently claiming out of work benefits in the UK, with 1.4 million claiming for 9 out of the last 10 years.

Britain has one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe, with 1.9 million children living in homes where no one has a job.

There are 900,000 people who have spent at least 10 years claiming Incapacity Benefit, while the cost of IB alone since 2000 has been almost £135bn and the welfare budget as a whole has increased by 40% in real terms from £63bn in 1996/1997 to £87bn in 2009/2010.

As well as sanctions, Mr Duncan Smith will announce a reform of benefits payments designed to ensure work pays. He is expected to pledge that around 35p in every £1 people earn as they come off benefit will stay in their pocket to ensure there is an incentive to work.

Currently some families on benefits lose more than £1 of income for every £1 they earn because of the withdrawal of state subsidies and tax credits.

In an interview this weekend, Mr Duncan Smith said his reforms were "the biggest change since Beveridge introduced the welfare system".

Some charities opposed to the changes have warned that thousands of people could be pushed into poverty, in particular by reforms to incapacity benefit. Disability Alliance claims that up to a million people with long term sickness or disability could be affected.

Despite this, there are signs that Labour could be close to supporting some of the measures. Douglas Alexander, the shadow work and pensions secretary, has said that Labour could support testing incapacity benefit claimants for their availability for work.

Under the plans, claimants face a new 12-month cap on their benefits, if ruled able to work. People who cannot work, for example the terminally ill, would be given support with no time limit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8114785/Work-shy-will-be-pushed-into-working-for-free-by-welfare-revolution.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As well as sanctions, Mr Duncan Smith will announce a reform of benefits payments designed to ensure work pays. He is expected to pledge that around 35p in every £1 people earn as they come off benefit will stay in their pocket to ensure there is an incentive to work.

Currently some families on benefits lose more than £1 of income for every £1 they earn because of the withdrawal of state subsidies and tax credits.

Making the unemployed work for free doesn't work. Any way you do that, you'll be eliminating private sector jobs. either because you're giving local businesses free labor which to the business is more attractive than paid labor or you give free labor to communities which will then do work that private businesses have historically contracted to do. They've done this in Germany some time back and it backfired all the way.

The incentives mentioned above make perfect sense. There are a lot of unemployed in Europe that simply cannot afford to work because whatever their take from a job is amounts to less than the existential minimum they are receiving in benefits. Helping people transition back into the workforce by making sure they are better off working than they are not working will reduce the number of unemployed significantly.

[Ban Hammer 13,514]

Making the unemployed work for free doesn't work. Any way you do that, you'll be eliminating private sector jobs. either because you're giving local businesses free labor which to the business is more attractive than paid labor or you give free labor to communities which will then do work that private businesses have historically contracted to do. They've done this in Germany some time back and it backfired all the way.

The incentives mentioned above make perfect sense. There are a lot of unemployed in Europe that simply cannot afford to work because whatever their take from a job is amounts to less than the existential minimum they are receiving in benefits. Helping people transition back into the workforce by making sure they are better off working than they are not working will reduce the number of unemployed significantly.

have them pick up trash along the highways.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

have them pick up trash along the highways.

This work is currently done by paid employees - either private or public. Having unpaid people perform the work will put those currently performing the job out of that job. So, you will re-integrate someone into the workforce but that comes at the cost of a currently employed person. What's the gain?

Edited November 8, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[웃 910]

Put a non-removable choke collar on their necks. Set choke collar to automatically buzz two times per day at random.

[Ban Hammer 13,514]

This work is currently done by paid employees - either private or public. Having unpaid people perform the work will put those currently performing the job out of that job. So, you will re-integrate someone into the workforce but that comes at the cost of a currently employed person. What's the gain?

i doubt all roads are policed often and well. no one need lose a job over it.

[SMR 368]

This work is currently done by paid employees - either private or public. Having unpaid people perform the work will put those currently performing the job out of that job. So, you will re-integrate someone into the workforce but that comes at the cost of a currently employed person. What's the gain?

You've never seen trash anywhere on any highway? I don't know the situation in the UK, but in the US, there are lots of places where no one is paid to collect litter. And even if they were going over the same area a second time, what's the harm in that? Those paid to pick up trash aren't paid by the pound of trash. Just because someone else happened to come by

And trash collecting aside, there are lots of organizations that rely on volunteers. Requiring that the unemployed put in hours at these organizations is, worse case, just going to mean that there are less volunteer opportunities to go around. But since no one is getting paid for those opportunities anyways, what's the harm?

Examples of these organizations are soup kitchens, habitat for humanity, or salvation Army. Yes, they do have paid employees. But they also have a lot of volunteers. Requiring that the unemployed put in some time at these types of organizations is not going to reduce the employment of anybody else.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i doubt all roads are policed often and well. no one need lose a job over it.

A very similar approach has been taken in Germany and local governments and businesses found that for menial tasks it's beneficial to them to use labor they did not have to compensate. The use of "free" labor actually put people out of work.

The re-structuring of unemployed benefits is much more successful if people that can't find gainful employment are incentivized to work - i.e. if they can accept even the lowest paid job knowing that they will still be better off financially than they would be staying unemployed. That's often not the case today and that is something that keeps people out of the workforce.

[Amby 490]

I've seen a lot of people on benefits who work for cash and still claim money. There's been stories in the news over there where people started claiming benefits because they made more money on benefits than they did working. I don't know if this is the answer, but something need to be done.

[Gemmie 142]

I prefer the idea of cutting down the AMOUNT of assistance received. I know people in the UK that collect Job Seekers Allowance because they get more money than if they worked. And I know people that simply make it their routine to go to the job centre and sign up every two weeks, without even thinking about job hunting - this makes me wonder how regulated it is. Making them work for free sounds like a good idea on the surface.

It still doesn't apply to all of the young women that choose to have kids rather than work - because they know they can receive government housing and several benefits. I know countless of those (and most of them go on to have more children and collect more benefits). Teen pregnancy is higher in the UK than anywhere in Europe, and I'm not surprised when they're given no incentive to do anything else. But I'm not really sure how to seperate those from the ones that genuinely need the help.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've seen a lot of people on benefits who work for cash and still claim money. There's been stories in the news over there where people started claiming benefits because they made more money on benefits than they did working. I don't know if this is the answer, but something need to be done.

That does happen, although just how common it is is open to question.

The trouble with topics like this is that people go off on kneejerk rants about welfare cheats, ignoring the fact that these cuts to welfare are going to negatively impact a lot of people who claiming benefit genuinely. The shakeup of incapacity benefit is going to have to be handled extremely delicately.

[alienlovechild 75]

This work is currently done by paid employees - either private or public. Having unpaid people perform the work will put those currently performing the job out of that job. So, you will re-integrate someone into the workforce but that comes at the cost of a currently employed person. What's the gain?

They use county jail here to pick up garbage and move furniture in and out county offices. They'd rather do that than stare at jail walls all day.

Edited November 8, 2010 by alienlovechild

[Danno 1,228]

Problem is, Gov't aid is so often set up so that the "Path of least resistance" ... is to -keep collecting.

Even if you required people to arrive at an office and listen to prerecorded lectures on how to find a job or be a better person .... a lot of people would figure "it's not worth the hassle" and get a job or live off mom or what ever.

I find it hard to believe that the Gov't has so much money that every possible demand for labor is already filled by a gov't work or contractor and we just can't find anything for these people to do without putting some3one else out of a job.