Unemployed told: do four weeks of unpaid work or lose your benefits

 

The unemployed will be ordered to do periods of compulsory full-time work in the community or be stripped of their benefits under controversial American-style plans to slash the number of people without jobs.

 

The proposals, in a white paper on welfare reform to be unveiled this week, are part of a radical government agenda aimed at cutting the £190bn-a-year welfare bill and breaking what the coalition now calls the "habit of worklessness".

 

The measures will be announced to parliament by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, as part of what he will describe as a new "contract" with the 1.4 million people on jobseekers' allowance. The government's side of the bargain will be the promise of a new "universal credit", to replace all existing benefits, that will ensure it always pays to work rather than stay on welfare.

 

In return, where advisers believe a jobseeker would benefit from experiencing the "habits and routines" of working life, an unemployed person will be told to take up "mandatory work activity" of at least 30 hours a week for a four-week period. If they refuse or fail to complete the programme their jobseeker's allowance payments, currently £50.95 a week for those under 25 and £64.30 for those over 25, could be stopped for at least three months.

 

The Department for Work and Pensions plans to contract private providers to organise the placements with charities, voluntary organisations and companies. An insider close to the discussions said: "We know there are still some jobseekers who need an extra push to get them into the mindset of being in the working environment and an opportunity to experience that 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 into the habit of worklessness."

 

Sanctions – including removal of benefit – currently exist if people refuse to go on training courses or fail to turn up to job interviews, but they are rarely used.

 

The plans stop short of systems used in the US since the 1990s under which benefits can be "time limited", meaning all payments end after a defined period. But they draw heavily on American attempts to change public attitudes to welfare and to change the perception that welfare is an option for life.

 

Last night the shadow work and pensions secretary, Douglas Alexander, suggested government policy on job creation was reducing people's chances of finding work: "The Tories have just abolished the future jobs fund, which offered real work and real hope to young people. If you examine the spending review then changes such as cuts to working tax credit are actually removing incentives to get people into work. What they don't seem to get about their welfare agenda is that without work it won't work."

 

Anne Begg, Labour MP and chair of the Commons select committee for work and pensions, said that many unemployed people already had a work record and carrying out work experience would give them less time to search for a job. "The problem is finding a job," she added. "One of the reasons the last government moved away from work placements and towards things such as the Future Jobs Fund was that it actually acted as a hindrance to them looking for work."

 

The Observer has also learned that ministers have abolished the Social Exclusion Taskforce, which was based in the Cabinet Office and co-ordinated activity across departments to drive out marginalisation in society. Documents show that the unit has become a part of "Big Society, Policy and Analysis".

 

Jon Trickett, a shadow minister focusing on social exclusion, reacted angrily, saying that ministers should "hang their heads in shame". Whitehall sources insisted the work would carry on, but more of it would take place in the Department for Work and Pensions.

 

Naomi Eisenstadt, who was director of the taskforce until last year and is now an academic at Oxford University, said the shift was worrying. "I don't think it is significant in terms of the name – call it a banana – who cares? What does worry me is why they are not using the civil servants who were doing the work on deep disadvantage in the Cabinet Office and exploiting their expertise," she said.

 

Eisenstadt added that it would be a concern if the government believed the "big society" could take the place of government intervention. "If you speak to any minister I am sure they would agree that civil society is one part of the solution, but not the whole solution," she said.

 

The proposals come as the government prepares to unveil policy plans across a number of departments. Tomorrow, the Ministry of Justice will reveal that thousands of criminals with serious mental illnesses or drug addictions will no longer be sent to prison but will instead be offered "voluntary" treatment in hospital. Documents will show that offenders will be free to walk away from NHS units because officials believe it would be pointless to create duplicate prisons in the community. "While treatment is voluntary, offenders in these programmes will be expected to engage, be motivated to change and to comply with the tough requirements of their community order," they will say.

 

Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, said: "Serious criminals who pose a threat to the public will always be kept locked up, but in every prison there are also people who ought to be receiving treatment for mental illness rather than housed with other criminals. The public would be better protected if they could receive that treatment in a more suitable setting."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/no...k-lose-benefits

 

 

 

Tory's, screwing things up for the poor people one step at a time. maybe rather than do this they should spend time to create new jobs rather than force them to do unpaid, sometimes humiliating jobs. what annoys me the most is that the people making these decisions are millionaires with no idea.

The fact that it is only for a few weeks makes it less dreadful but not much. If the work is there to be done - and it is - then people should be paid a proper wage to do it.

i agree with this to an extent, but 30 hours a week is a bit steep isn't it!

Terrible. :angry: The Coalition are just picking on the less fortunate in society, unemployed, sick and disabled instead of raising taxes a couple of pence, getting the RBS tax debt in and stoppiing all overseas aid. DISGRACEFUL.

Edited November 7, 201014 yr by Common Sense

I'm unemployed at the moment and I am absolutely terrified that I will stuck in work that I don't want to do for the rest of my life while the line of work I want to be in will just slip away as a pipe dream. Although I really really hate being on the dole and if I had enough money wouldn't be on it.

Those who are trying to get a job or made redundant recently I feel shouldn't have to do this over the people who are capable to work but choose not too.

Sometimes benefits is a last resort for some and consider it a temporary thing until they get back on their feet.

 

I'm told the system is abused by a minority though :/..

 

Edit: minority not majority.

Edited August 26, 201212 yr by Jay.

Those who are trying to get a job or made redundant recently shouldn't have to do this over the people who are capable to work but choose not too.

Sometimes benefits is a last resort for some and consider it a temporary thing until they get back on their feet.

 

The systems heavily abused by a majority though, and they should be made to earn their handouts.

If they don't like the work their given, they not what they can do: look for a job that suits and earns a wage.

 

You havent been unemployed ever have you? so easy to tell sometimes.

I lost my part time job when the store closed in recession.

Though my circumstances are different being in full-time education I don't depend on the income.

 

To my understanding, the system is there for the infirm and unable people in society we should care for - and those who need it temporarily while they find work?

Edited August 26, 201212 yr by Jay.

I lost my part time job when the store closed in recession.

Though my circumstances are different being in full-time education I don't depend on the income.

 

To my understanding, the system is there for the infirm and unable people in society we should care for - and those who need it temporarily while they find work.

I don't see the issue with giving those who can't be bothered some form of work to earn their money and get some experience which will help on a C.V. to get them some form of employment.

 

yes but from your former post you sort of suggest anyone can get a job easily and people who don't just don't want to, yes some people try to abuse the system, but it's hardly a majority, I started looking for work in July, actively, and signed on (which means you HAVE to apply for at least 2 jobs a week, sometimes more i think it differs from person to person), so while applying for 2 jobs a week I didn't find anything until LAST WEEK, so went from July-November constantly looking for work, TRYING hard, and getting not even an interview anywhere, yes it SHOULD be tempoary but it is'nt, you don't really get it as much until you have actually experienced what it is like, on average 16 people go for each job vacancy, basically the job market in this country right now is disasterous and at the same time unemployment is rising more, at a times we need more jobs our Government is making unemployed people do unpaid work, this makes no sense when the Government (who are helping considerably with rising unemployment with the harsh cuts) could be making these unpaid jobs they are forcing on people into actual jobs, i don't really see how anyone thinks this makes sense unless they are ignorant to think anyone on benefits is just some lazy c**t who perfers not to work, having gone to the job centre once a week for months I know this is not true.

Sorry, meant minority. No I understand and am aware people are struggling to get jobs at the moment, which is why the system is useful for them and those unable to work.

 

I'm considerate enough to know everyone on the scheme shouldn't be painted with same brush :)

Edited August 26, 201212 yr by Jay.

To my understanding, the system is there for the infirm and unable people in society we should care for - and those who need it temporarily while they find work.

I don't see the issue with giving those who can't be bothered some form of work to earn their money and get some experience which will help on a C.V. to get them some form of employment.

I'm pretty sure very few people on Jobseeker's Allowance 'can't be bothered' to work. Very few people want to be unemployed or chose not to work, do they? You need to apply for 2 jobs a week to show that you're actually receive it. And it's not like Incapacity Benefit, where you are physically unable, or supposedly unable to work in the medium/long term.

I'm pretty sure very few people on Jobseeker's Allowance 'can't be bothered' to work. Very few people want to be unemployed or chose not to work, do they? You need to apply for 2 jobs a week to show that you're actually receive it. And it's not like Incapacity Benefit, where you are physically unable, or supposedly unable to work in the medium/long term.

Good point. However, I formed my opinion on incapacity only (those who claim being unable when they are).

 

Jobseeker's didn't actually cross my mind. Now it's been brought to light, I agree, most people on that are likely to be actively searching and desiring employment of course.

Okay, speaking as one of these "long-suffering tax-payers" the Daily Mail bangs on about, I have no desire to see people humiliated and demeaned any more than I want to see them rot away on the dole not contributing anything to the system... This "scheme" does the former, and does nothing to address the latter, it simply does NOT address the problem of unemployment or getting people into full-time work, earning a wage and paying taxes... What the fukk is the point in giving someone three or four weeks "voluntary" work to do..? What are they gonna be doing? Learning a trade? Be on a work placement in a firm? Like fukk, they'll be picking up rubbish and clearing ditches.. What a load of crap, this is what they do to petty criminals, it's called "Community Service"... So, now we're equating long-term unemployment with criminality... "Big Society", eh Dave..? If you cant get any volunteers to go along with your crackpot scheme, hey, force the scum on the dole to do it... We could quite easily be seeing people made redundant from Council jobs like working in parks and clearing litter, then in 12 months actually back to doing the same job, only getting the dole for it instead of a wage... Couldn't happen?? Don't you believe it, exactly this happened to at least one person who worked for a council (and lost his job due to, errr, cuts...) when the Tories did "Training for Work" schemes back in the 1980s...

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same... Fukkin' Tory SCUM.... <_<

Terrible. :angry: The Coalition are just picking on the less fortunate in society, unemployed, sick and disabled instead of raising taxes a couple of pence, getting the RBS tax debt in and stoppiing all overseas aid. DISGRACEFUL.

What did you expect?

Love the Tories :heart:

 

I hope they make all those scabby chavs who live near me who have never worked at all do this :cheer:

What did you expect?

 

And he was one who voted for Cameron.... :lol: :lol:

Terrible. :angry: The Coalition are just picking on the less fortunate in society, unemployed, sick and disabled instead of raising taxes a couple of pence, getting the RBS tax debt in and stoppiing all overseas aid. DISGRACEFUL.

 

It's Ian "Dunkin' Donut's" idea though, he's a Tory, you voted for them, remember....? :rolleyes: Better suck it up and roll up your sleeves big-boy, cuz you iz gonna be on de Chain Gang..... :P

 

"Breaking rocks in the hot sun/I fought the law/And the/Law won"

 

By the way, I've not done a U-turn on my opinion of this, I just find the sheer irony of Chris all of a sudden objecting to Tory plans hilarious seeing as how he voted for them, and now all of a sudden it dawns on him that there are personal consequences due to him being one of the "work-shy". Re-arrange these words into a well-known phrase - voting, turkeys, Christmas, for... :lol: :lol: :P

I already work so these plans don't bother me much.

I already work so these plans don't bother me much.

 

that's a rather selfish point of view, don't care for anyone but yourself then? what if you get made redundant and struggle finding a new job?

that's a rather selfish point of view, don't care for anyone but yourself then? what if you get made redundant and struggle finding a new job?

 

Shelli doesn't think that far ahead Chris, I mean, come on dude..... :lol:

 

If it's not something to do with fluffy bunnies or puppies or cats being put in bins, Shelli doesn't care for sh!t.... :rolleyes: