'Welfare to work' - a taboo subject?

I must say that i have been surpised at the lack of comments and discussion on the what looks like a collapse of the 'Welfare to work' scheme..It feels like this subject is taboo... :affraid:

We have comapnies withdrawing their involvement in the welfare to work scheme following Tesco's job centre advert for 4 weeks work 'experience' where the reward is job seelers allowance plus expenses....

Now whilst I can see some benefits to the scheme perhaps it should have been thought through a little more......

would you be willing to work for £2.30 per hour with no guarantee of a job at the end of it........

Thoughts, opinions, rants?

I think the subject being so important is coming up all over the place

P.S. I was paid MORE than that as a second year apprentice printer in 1972

The Prime Minister's former "family champion" Emma Harrison has stepped down as the chairman of the welfare-to-work firm, A4e , the media heat was attracting way too much attention than was welcome , private sector rotten apples , once they have been charged and dismissed Emma will be cosy with Cameron again .

I'm amazed Herr Cameron doesnt have the Military adevertise for some very cheap cannon fodder, he will need some after his cutbacks to our armed forces.

Unpaid jobseekers have been forced to clean private homes and offices for more than a month at a time under government employment schemes, despite mounting evidence that the controversial policy is reducing the overall availability of paid work by replacing temporary jobs and overtime for other staff.
Freedom of information exposes that a major government contractor, Avanta, has compelled jobseekers to work as unpaid cleaners in houses, flats, offices and council premises under the work programme.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has previously stated that all mandatory schemes must be for "community benefit". However, under government rules, this can be defined as increasing the PROFIT of organisations where the unemployed are sent to work without pay.

The whole system is rotten along with this devious Tory led rabble.

There must be SOMETHING that the Tory-led Coalition can get right ....

How about this for an idea.......Companies take on the unemployed for 4 to 8 weeks, but rather than expect them to work just for JSA+expenses the company could top this up to the National Minimum Wage......it would only cost the company up to £4 per hour....

The argument for the scheme is that it gives incentive to the unemployed to get in to work rather than just accepting benefits, so if the money they had available was suddenly double what better incentive.......After all it's the argument used to justify top bankers high wages.

oftenwrong wrote:There must be SOMETHING that the Tory-led Coalition can get right ....

Not much it seems! In fact nothing so far. Just about every policy they come up with either ends up being either a disaster or a 'U' turn!

astrad 1

Excellent idea sir. In fact I suggested exactly the very same idea a few days ago on another thread. This would give greater incentives as long as the whole scheme would be directed at small and medium sized preferably manufacturing type conpanies, rather than the large supermarkets teaching shelf stacking nonsense.

If opponents to the present government ( and that includes me ) are looking for a unreserved and wholesale condemnation of the governments plans, then you will have a long wait.

We all know that many aspects of the governments plans are unfair, unreasonable and that the policies will see sharp rises in poverty and homeless, but the fact is that even most working class Labour voters believe the benefits system is too easy and does not encourage working for a living.

The government CAN get away with the unfair aspects of its programme simply because most people in the country want welfare made harder, and they want work to pay, in other words the nasty bits of legislation will go through with the bits that people agree with.

There is a sensible middle ground somewhere, where fairness prevails, but under this government "fairness" is not a word that counts for anything, and I am afraid to say that Labour were too soft on welfare, too far in the opposite direction.

"but the fact is that even most working class Labour voters believe the benefits system is too easy and does not encourage working for a living."

Indeed witchfinder you are correct. What they do not realise is that if suddenly there becomes droves of the unemployed desperate or forced to take anything workwise that might be going, there own wage structure or even their jobs could be reduced or taken due to the mass of cheap labour availability to employers.

It's all craftily and stealthily being worked to bring the workforce to the mercy of the employers. Partucularly the big Tory supporting ones.

Where are the unions in all this? They have become dormant.

astradt1 wrote:
How about this for an idea.......Companies take on the unemployed for 4 to 8 weeks, but rather than expect them to work just for JSA+expenses the company could top this up to the National Minimum Wage......it would only cost the company up to £4 per hour....

The argument for the scheme is that it gives incentive to the unemployed to get in to work rather than just accepting benefits.

Why should private shareholders benefit from the unemployed , topping up the £4 per hour is a gold mine for these big firms and again would attract the type of media coverage that they don't want. Remember what the tories said before the minimum wage came in , ohh it will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs , they were proved to be the scare mongers and miles from reality. The private sector has a problem on it's hands now , the public aware the cat is out of the bag will not tolerate being used by corporate fat cats , not after the banking debacle and the MPs expenses etc. I would love to see IDS behind closed doors , he must be bloody fuming ha ha ha .

Mel wrote:Where are the unions in all this? They have become dormant.

That is a good question Mel I wonder why they have been keeping quite of late, I know that most of there powers where taken away by Thatcher so in some things the Unions had there hands tied.

By definition, a Trade Union can only make representations on behalf of its MEMBERS.

To become a member of a Trade Union you need to be employed.

In principle, the Union movement will always support apprenticeships, on-the-job training and further education of all kinds. Given the current circumstances it is likely that both the Parliamentary Opposition and their Trade Union allies are watching with interest as this Coalition digs its own grave.

oftenwrong wrote:By definition, a Trade Union can only make representations on behalf of its MEMBERS.

To become a member of a Trade Union you need to be employed.

In principle, the Union movement will always support apprenticeships, on-the-job training and further education of all kinds. Given the current circumstances it is likely that both the Parliamentary Opposition and their Trade Union allies are watching with interest as this Coalition digs its own grave.

With respect I would suggest that the PO and TU's are quietly digging that grave, taken the rising opposition to this Government. Next with the spade - the BMA?

I overheard a quiet mention when out walking my master - him on the left!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

there are some 64 million people in this country

If Philip Green and Ashcroft "club together" with £35 million each, that gives everyone in the country half a million to pay off debts. £34M is chicken feed to these two - does not cover the cost of their private airforces OK private jets and helicopters!

Right, so money is sloshing around the country, hire purchase companies have gone bust - GOOD

Only one drawback as far as I can see!

Everbuddy will be thinking the sun shines oot o' cameroon's ar5e. DON'T WANT THAT!! OH NO NO NO!!

Then I awaken and as Howard Hughes said "everything will be back to the present situation in 6 months"

When the tax are adamant to get £400 out of me for year 2007-2008, and I see that the W--- bankers have been let off with £40 BILLION it makes me SICK to the BACK TEETH. Since 1979, the bankers have been molly coddled and pandered to like none of the despised nationalised industries EVER were

Quite so, Astra. The government is quite happy for us all to feel poor. It stops people asking too many questions of their Employer.

Currently in the news is the resignation of a lady who has been part of Cameron's plan to get people back into work. Evidently that lady has been very good at the job, because she has amassed a personal fortune of £M37 from running A4E.

" hire purchase companies have gone bust - GOOD."


Sorry, NOT good - not good at all. Most people know that Banks are being forced to pay £billions in compensation to punters who were mis-sold PPI. NORTON FINANCE was one of the companies caught in the same net, but their clients won't be getting a penny. The Company has gone into liquidation, and therefore can't pay.
There is a new company at the same address, which is also called Norton-something-or-other but the new Company has no responsibility for the debts of any previous company with a similar name.

It is all perfectly legal.

Like the fellow Siddle who here in the North East went bust with his haulage company.

A few weeks later we had Elddis Transport and Caravan manufacturer

Must have all the brass neck of the Berlin Wall!

astra wrote:Like the fellow Siddle who here in the North East went bust with his haulage company.

A few weeks later we had Elddis Transport and Caravan manufacturer

Must have all the brass neck of the Berlin Wall!

As I understand it J.?Siddle sold his original transport company to a shipping company- Tay? something. . Some years later his elder son bought out a local transport-trailer company. Thus Elddis Transport. Transport companies often change hands, sometimes within the family - as with Eddie Stobart.

The name change was still a wheeze (shall we say?)

astra wrote:The name change was still a wheeze (shall we say?)

That's something I get when I catch a cold.

Wheeze - shall we say. Is that a cryptic clue? Wheeze - sounds like wees - sounds like taking the p...?

the whole thing (According to legend) was a tax fiddle.

There was some resentment at the time.

In principle the scheme is a good idea and it seems the have a lot of support from the wider population. As a Recruitment consultant myself, I would much rather see a Cv with some experience on there than one with none at all. Voluntary charity work on a youngsters Cv is also a winner with prospective employers too. What I would do though is promote Astradt1's idea...that seems the most logical and would encourage people to see it through.

How about this for an idea.......Companies take on the unemployed for 4 to 8 weeks, but rather than expect them to work just for JSA+expenses the company could top this up to the National Minimum Wage......it would only cost the company up to £4 per hour....

Scarecrow

Why should private shareholders benefit from the unemployed , topping up the £4 per hour is a gold mine for these big firms and again would attract the type of media coverage that they don't want

You are wrong friend......Surely the jobless person would benefit. What new skills are people going to learn sitting on the bums all day just collecting JSA, that are going to help them in the search for a job?

A columnist for the Guardian and Sunday Mail said on Daily Politics today.

“it’s the Government that need to get some Work Experience“.

And how right she was.

There isn't much support for the notion of paying people to do nothing. In the Thirteenth Century, the Parish had a legal duty to feed and house any traveller demanding shelter for the night. In the morning they would be beaten out of town by the Parish Constable. Then some Victorian Workhouses had a treadmill so that the inmates could thus "pay" for their board and lodging by pumping water from the well.

What's still required is a humane way of providing safety-net subsistence for the unemployed which is rather less attractive than taking a job or re-training.

blue. So you would consider a Cv showing four months stacking shelves in a supermarket as being worthwhile wouls you?

Well Mel,

I would do the usual Recruitment Consultant thing and and look at the others skills gained while undertaking this role. It's irrelevant that they stacked shelves, but if I can show on that persons Cv that they now have organisational, customer and team work skills then that will help their chances gaining future employment....Basically its a start!

It's not perfect Mel, that's why I agreed with Astadt1's idea to top up the JSA with another £4 per hour, but it must be better than sitting at home on the x box or watch Jeremy Vile and Loose Women all day.
To me this is one of a few ideas that should be implemented, along side investment in manufacturing, apprenticeships and vocational skills training.

I would also implement new employment regulations as we have done here in Jersey. Companies have to apply for a special licence to employ people with less than 5 years residency and even then only 10% of workers can be employed by a firm without this residency status (Tourism is exempt because it's seasonal) Maybe the UK should try something like this?

bobby wrote:A columnist for the Guardian and Sunday Mail said on Daily Politics today.

“it’s the Government that need to get some Work Experience“.

And how right she was.

I was watching today as well bobby, there is only one thing wrong with there suggestion you have to have brains to get Work Experience and as you know bobby they do not have a brain cell between any of them.

Yes blue,

I had already suggested what our friend astadt1's has advocated previously on another thread. (great minds think alike) This would be IMO a great incentive for the unemployed to get away from watching the box as you seem to think they are doing. I trust you are advocating the employers foot the bill for the extra £4 per hour? We wouldn't want the tax payer further subsidising these companies, now would we?
If one takes into consideration someone working for one of the large supermarkets for peanut wages, making them perhaps eligable for housing rental assistance/council tax exemption etc, the taxpayer in those cases are already subsidising these huge profit making companies in the first place.

Get these young people into small/medium firms. preferably manufacturing to obtain some worthwhile proper work experience and forget the big chains who already employ virtually cheap labour.

Such pleasure Governments and the Civil Service take from complicating any given subject.

Carrot and stick.

If you want people to have work experience, it is only necessary to provide a tax incentive to Employers.

oftenwrong wrote:Such pleasure Governments and the Civil Service take from complicating any given subject.

Carrot and stick.

If you want people to have work experience, it is only necessary to provide a tax incentive to Employers.

Channel 4 News tonight apparently ASDA have been carrying on in a Yorkshire store having kids fill in over the Christmas period so they did not have to give and pay there staff overtime so that says it all.

I had already suggested what our friend astadt1's has advocated previously on another thread. (great minds think alike) This would be IMO a great incentive for the unemployed to get away from watching the box as you seem to think they are doing. I trust you are advocating the employers foot the bill for the extra £4 per hour? We wouldn't want the tax payer further subsidising these companies, now would we?
If one takes into consideration someone working for one of the large supermarkets for peanut wages, making them perhaps eligable for housing rental assistance/council tax exemption etc, the taxpayer in those cases are already subsidising these huge profit making companies in the first place.

Get these young people into small/medium firms. preferably manufacturing to obtain some worthwhile proper work experience and forget the big chains who already employ virtually cheap labour..

Mel....It will probably surprise you but I agree with everything you say here. There has to be a stronger incentive for 'some' unemployed people to get back into work and maybe this would do the trick.
My only concern which I think was pointed out in an earlier post is that the government have to make sure companies do not start abusing the system by getting rid of current employees in favour of the subsidised cheaper option

Andrew Mitchell is my local MP , I live in one of the safest tory seats in the UK , I abhor the tories and the mantra that they operate , Mitchell , who worked for Lazard bank which is a Rothschild cousin bank , tried to say that the £5billion UK government aid to India over a 5 year period was aid with no strings attached , but he uses the phrase " in the round" meaning the UK expects contracts from India , this was true in the good old days , but India is not as forthcoming with contracts to the UK as it is to other countries , India gives away £7 billion in aid of it's own money ? It's only tax payers money , no worries . The cabinet would be more prudent if it were there own finance being used.

I laughed upon seeing blueturando ' s location below the avatar an offshore fiefdom
for the tory party amongst the rest of the nefarius elite who 's paper trails end in offshore dwellings. ha ha ha .

We have a cabinet of some 23 millionaires calling the shots in the UK , Mitchell being one of them , long gone are the days when Maggie could test the likes of the poll tax on the Scots , the british electorate are awake and vigilant , I know I am and relish the time we live in , because there is a groundswell of the little people , they are waking up daily to the machinations of this coalition and how they are trying to scupper the proud people of the UK.

The government will be humbled by social media in the long run , the political landscape is changing , yet Cameron and co still pine for the hard right agenda and mantra, the enemy is social awakening , the internet.

"the british electorate are awake and vigilant "

I hope you are correct Scarecrow, although they seem to be taking their time. Is it do you think because they care not if they still have a job, or perhaps they bother not to involve themselves in politics, as it may be boring? Allowing those who suffer from Tory measures attempt to stand up to the government alone and without the support of those who think they are "ok Jack" so far. (God help them)
Thatcher created an attitude of care for oneself and sod anyone else. Dog eat dog and unfortunately that attitude still exists.

Mel wrote:"the british electorate are awake and vigilant "

I hope you are correct Scarecrow, although they seem to be taking their time. Is it do you think because they care not if they still have a job, or perhaps they bother not to involve themselves in politics, as it may be boring? Allowing those who suffer from Tory measures attempt to stand up to the government alone and without the support of those who think they are "ok Jack" so far. (God help them)
Thatcher created an attitude of care for oneself and sod anyone else. Dog eat dog and unfortunately that attitude still exists.

I hope scarecrow is right Mel if not I will be going out and buying the loudest alarm clock I can find.

I laughed upon seeing blueturando ' s location below the avatar an offshore fiefdom
for the tory party amongst the rest of the nefarius elite who 's paper trails end in offshore dwellings. ha ha ha .

Scarecrow.....Please don't be fooled by the location. I came the Jersey at 18 for a bit of fun after education, worked in a hotel for peanuts, bed and board...Loved the beach lifestyle, so never went back to the UK. I am not a millionaire just like 99% of people that live here, but I own and run my own small business...that's it! It's like me saying someone who is from Cheshire must be a professional footballer.

The avatar is just a bit of fun, but it does let other posters know I'm a Tory just to save time and confusion...now i hope that clears things up for you

long gone are the days when Maggie could test the likes of the poll tax on the Scots , the british electorate are awake and vigilant ,

Hello Scarecrow.

I hope you are right about the vigilant bit!

Thing is thie people of this country are scared to effin move - the laws are so tight.
Start a strike, or even sugest a disturbance on the 'net as a wheeze and you are in pokey. Tell a foreign power that their defenCe (as opposed to defense!!) computer programmes are crap and you are extradited there for terrorism. Talk to an American spy and you are weighed in for terrorist acts.

The laws here are so tight and applied with such vigour that everyone - even on here methinks has to be careful

The duplicity of this is of course astounding and insulting to the British Populace.

Do you see the Yanks returning the 30 or so IRA terrorists who have been given political assylum in USA? I don't (Tell the truth, I do not want them back! and the two brits extradited, do NOT have blood ACTUALLY on their hands!) As these people are on assylum, they cannot work, so are being supported by the American Taxpayer. Are they REALLY happy about this?

blueturando says.
The avatar is just a bit of fun, but it does let other posters know I'm a Tory just to save time and confusion...now i hope that clears things up for you.

I would have thought the word blue in your name would have been information enough for people to realise you were a tory. There should be no need for a photo of a Grocers, witch of a daughter.