[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

People who work and who are attempting to find work should be fully supported. If you've not found work in two years you should be given a job, and you should do it until you find something more suitable for yourself. No more long-term arse-sitting.

Yeah, the government are going to be all over that one. Take the UK's 1.8 million unemployed, and instead of giving them £70 a week jobseeker's allowance, create work for them and pay them the £250 a week minimum wage.

It's a brilliant idea in theory but for some reason, I can't imagine it happening.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yeah, the government are going to be all over that one. Take the UK's 1.8 million unemployed, and instead of giving them £70 a week jobseeker's allowance, create work for them and pay them the £250 a week minimum wage.

It's a brilliant idea in theory but for some reason, I can't imagine it happening.

This rotten govt brought in ESA with 2 groupings,the support group for long very long term/permanent health conditions and disabilities and the WRAG group for those who may be able to do some work a year or 2 down the line.

Now they are moving the goalposts again, those deemed unfit for work from 2017 as to new claimants but who are felt could work in a year to 2 years down the line, are going to see the ESA rate slashed by at least £25 per week and bring it in line with jobseekers.
Yet these are people still deemed unfit for work at this time by the DWP.

Another absolute disgrace and the benefit bashing goes on and on, a say again a surplus founded on and built in any part of from the sick, disabled, poor and vulnerable should be a total disgrace.

It is all well and good to say people should be in work rather than be unemployed but with far fewer real full time jobs available and still 1.8 million unemployed, until you have the reverse of those figures, everyone in real full employment is pie in the sky.

This govt may well eventually be economically more confident but has not a scrap of decency as to its social policy making and really protecting the vulnerable.
I will put all my energy into getting this shower of s...e removed at the next election,no matter who may take over as long as they have decency. compassion and a social conscience at the heart of their policymaking.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yeah, the government are going to be all over that one. Take the UK's 1.8 million unemployed, and instead of giving them £70 a week jobseeker's allowance, create work for them and pay them the £250 a week minimum wage.

It's a brilliant idea in theory but for some reason, I can't imagine it happening.

I'm not talking about GIVING them £250 a week, I'm talking about setting them to work for £250 a week, actively doing something to contribute while still looking for whatever it is they would be happier doing.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm not talking about GIVING them £250 a week, I'm talking about setting them to work for £250 a week, actively doing something to contribute while still looking for whatever it is they would be happier doing.

Yes but the fact remains that the government would need to find an aditional £180 a week for 1.8 million people (£17bn a year). It doesn't seem very likely...

Also slightly amused that you think people who don't have jobs only don't have jobs because they haven't found one they would be "happy" doing. Most people on minimum wage are slogging it out doing something they hate.
(As are some of us on significantly more than minimum wage... le sigh)
And most jobseekers would take any full time paid employment offered to them whether or not it was their dream job.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but the fact remains that the government would need to find an aditional £180 a week for 1.8 million people (£17bn a year). It doesn't seem very likely...

Also slightly amused that you think people who don't have jobs only don't have jobs because they haven't found one they would be "happy" doing. Most people on minimum wage are slogging it out doing something they hate.
(As are some of us on significantly more than minimum wage... le sigh)
And most jobseekers would take any full time paid employment offered to them whether or not it was their dream job.

Well said and spot on.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but the fact remains that the government would need to find an aditional £180 a week for 1.8 million people (£17bn a year). It doesn't seem very likely...

Also slightly amused that you think people who don't have jobs only don't have jobs because they haven't found one they would be "happy" doing. Most people on minimum wage are slogging it out doing something they hate.
(As are some of us on significantly more than minimum wage... le sigh)
And most jobseekers would take any full time paid employment offered to them whether or not it was their dream job.

There are a lot of people out there who really do need to be employed in accordance with their experience and qualifications though. When we found ourselves in that situation a few years ago, the first thing we did was sit down and work out how long we could hold out before declaring ourselves personally bankrupt. I was still working full time but the loss of one income inevitably meant the loss of our home. Steve needed time to make the commitment to find the sort of work he needed but no job centre in the land was going to permit him to do that. Fortunately for us we have parents who helped us through the rough times. I have to say though, it gave us such a shake up that once he was back in secure employment we decided to rid ourselves of a hefty mortgage and start living a much more frugal lifestyle. If this ever happens again we'll be ready for it.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but the fact remains that the government would need to find an aditional £180 a week for 1.8 million people (£17bn a year). It doesn't seem very likely...

Also slightly amused that you think people who don't have jobs only don't have jobs because they haven't found one they would be "happy" doing. Most people on minimum wage are slogging it out doing something they hate.
(As are some of us on significantly more than minimum wage... le sigh)
And most jobseekers would take any full time paid employment offered to them whether or not it was their dream job.

No... the government wouldn't be giving them anything. They would be placing them into a job. There are lots of jobs about... not the greatest, highest paying, most satisfying jobs in the world but they would pay the bills till something better came along. And they would pay more than benefits, consequently cutting the bill for tax payers. There are people who are unemployed as a lifestyle, don't try to pretend there aren't.

Why are you amused? I'm amused that you once again totally misconstrued the point I was making and countered it with taking the piss. You're the one who mentioned "dream jobs". I said, till something better came along, something they may be happier doing. I don't see how you could misunderstand that, but you did.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

No... the government wouldn't be giving them anything. They would be placing them into a job. There are lots of jobs about... not the greatest, highest paying, most satisfying jobs in the world but they would pay the bills till something better came along. And they would pay more than benefits, consequently cutting the bill for tax payers. There are people who are unemployed as a lifestyle, don't try to pretend there aren't.

Why are you amused? I'm amused that you once again totally misconstrued the point I was making and countered it with taking the piss. You're the one who mentioned "dream jobs". I said, till something better came along, something they may be happier doing. I don't see how you could misunderstand that, but you did.

There are not 1.8 million jobs available in the UK Livia. There is, at any one time, about 1/3 of that.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There are not 1.8 million jobs available in the UK Livia. There is, at any one time, about 1/3 of that.

Heaven forfend we should get a third of those people working then. There's always a lot of talk about immigrants claiming benefits but quite honestly, I've hardly met any that don't already have a job, lots of them menial, unsocial hours etc... but they're working.

There are lots and lots of people unemployed and desperately trying to get their lives back on track and they should get all the help they need. But there are a lot who don't intend to work because they're quite comfortable. It's madness...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Heaven forfend we should get a third of those people working then. There's always a lot of talk about immigrants claiming benefits but quite honestly, I've hardly met any that don't already have a job, lots of them menial, unsocial hours etc... but they're working.

There are lots and lots of people unemployed and desperately trying to get their lives back on track and they should get all the help they need. But there are a lot who don't intend to work because they're quite comfortable. It's madness...

I'm not denying that there are people who simply have no intention of being in work, I'm just saying that of all of the unemployed, the vast majority desperately want any job. It's obviously not quite as simple as you're making out. For one, I rarely hear of an employer struggling to fill vacancies when they have them... there are plenty of applicants for every position and - certainly around here at least - min wage vacancies are filled within a week of being advertised and have dozens if not hundreds of applicants.

Nowhere is getting "no applicants". If someone is struggling to fill a job position, it's because no one who has tried for the job has been qualified / experienced enough to fill the role. I don't see how the government stepping in to shoehorn a random jobseeker into that job would help anyone either. You'd have someone struggling to do the job, and a business forced to take an employee who is potentially incompetent in the role? I mean, thinking of entry level where I am, which pays only marginally above minimum wage... I can only imagine what would happen if the govt. tried to send in any old jobseeker.

The problem being that "low paid", these days, doesn't mean "anyone can do it". Even at entry level at mine you need to have two things to work where I work; 1) A reasonable level of intelligence (some maths ability, especially) and 2) Skin a foot thick and a decent death stare.

Even being selective we've had really bad hiring decisions. Kids who either struggle with the training and can't be signed off as competent, or ones who are fine with the technical role but crumble as soon as they have to deal with an... *ahem*... "customer query" (AKA deathmatch).

TL;DR - Businesses aren't struggling to fill their vacancies on their own and they don't need the government to step in, blundering around forcing decisions that could damage turnover.