[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

And so will everyone else hen.

Go for it chicken

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It does show the guy doing it, he was happy to do it he wouldn't have offered otherwise, although that's not strictly the point.
You can't effectively close down a road like you can a library too.
This is what I'm trying to put across if they are relying on volunteers to do community based work then how is anyone in the community going to earn a living? :/

Nobody has lost their job, the wage earners are doing the bigger jobs, the community volunteers are taking the pressure off their workload in this case.
They are only filling in the piddly ones, big enough to annoy motorists and cyclists but not top of the list for major works. Win win I reckon.
As long as it is 100% volunteer work and no pressure on people to do it then I am all for it.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Go for it chicken

You should have just said cock.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Imagine having to get up in the morning to do an unpaid job to get your benefits for not having a job..

Silly, isn't it?

If it was a position that would result in a job then I could understand but I don't understand why we should force the unemployed to work for their benefits in a position that likely won't lead to a job or teach any marketable skills. If they are expected to work than their unemployment benefits should match that of the wage they'd be paid if their unpaid work was an actual job. Employing someone to only pay them the amount they'd receive on benefits would be considered illegal because it's nowhere near being close to minimum wage.

[Toy Soldier]

If able bodied people were to work for minimum wage to earn the amount of their benefits, it would only amount to 9 hours. Yet they want to have people working 30+ hours for it?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Nobody has lost their job, the wage earners are doing the bigger jobs, the community volunteers are taking the pressure off their workload in this case.
They are only filling in the piddly ones, big enough to annoy motorists and cyclists but not top of the list for major works. Win win I reckon.
As long as it is 100% volunteer work and no pressure on people to do it then I am all for it.

I didn't say anyone had lost their job, piddly little roads are paid for just as much as major roads, it's unfair for semi rural areas to rely on volunteers and their road maintenance budget be used elsewhere.
Social care is being scapegoated and used as an emotional lever to suggest they need the budget that is wrong, they are playing on the good nature of communities while siphoning off funding and corroding earning potential at the same time.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

You should have just said cock.

Right this is getting silly, I'm done egging you on

[Cherie]

If people want to give something back the community, maybe look after their elderly neighbours, and look out for them or volunteer at your local hospital shop or radio or something that isn't taking a job that someone would get paid for and for which we pay our taxes away, filling potholes however small is a job for the highways agency, why do we pay road tax if some volunteer is going to do it, same with cutting grass verges etc,

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I disagree with this. To claim any kind of unemployment benefit you have to provide 35 hours worth of jobsearch a week so where would you fit a 'voluntary' position? Unless you are suggesting that unemployed people should work longer hours than full time employers for a pittance?

Unpaid work should be a choice, not something forced on the unemployed when it won't benefit anyone but the companies using them for free labour.

In which case their job search should be reduced depending on how many hours they work.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Right this is getting silly, I'm done egging you on

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

In which case their job search should be reduced depending on how many hours they work.

So you want them to spend less time actually looking for a job so that they can work an unpaid job that ultimately won't benefit them in the long run?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

So you want them to spend less time actually looking for a job so that they can work an unpaid job that ultimately won't benefit them in the long run?

How many actually spend 35 hours on job search anyway. I'm talking more the long-term unemployed - 6 months+ anyway.

It will give them routine ie getting up in the morning and it has to carry some weight with future employers if they can demonstrate reliability and time-keeping. Hopefully it would also make them feel useful and good about contributing.

Don't see why some would be so negative about it.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

How many actually spend 35 hours on job search anyway. I'm talking more the long-term unemployed - 6 months+ anyway.

It will give them routine ie getting up in the morning and it has to carry some weight with future employers if they can demonstrate reliability and time-keeping. Hopefully it would also make them feel useful and good about contributing.

Don't see why some would be so negative about it.

The government already tried this. The sort of jobs they gave them were shelf stacking in supermarkets. This meant that supermarkets could employ less salaried shelf stackers meaning more people became unemployed and less jobs were advertised and of course, it meant the supermarkets got free labour. If that person on JSA refused to stack shelves, they simply got their benefits stopped.... It was a win win for the Tories. If benefits were stopped they were no longer classed as unemployed and if they stacked shelves for their benefits, they were no longer classed as unemployed.

The trouble with that is, no matter which way you look at it, it is slave labour.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

How many actually spend 35 hours on job search anyway. I'm talking more the long-term unemployed - 6 months+ anyway.

It will give them routine ie getting up in the morning and it has to carry some weight with future employers if they can demonstrate reliability and time-keeping. Hopefully it would also make them feel useful and good about contributing.

Don't see why some would be so negative about it.

Do you have a time limit for this idea? Like is it until they find a job or is it just for a couple of weeks?

[ebandit]

...with much experience of signing on i can add............never at any time was i expected to jobsearch for 35 hrs.............fulfilling my agreement only takes a few
mins a day

when under work programme and doing 'voluntary' work the 30 hr working week includes time for organised jobsearch + jobcentre advisors make allowance accepting
a reduced jobsearch diary

Mark L

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

How many actually spend 35 hours on job search anyway. I'm talking more the long-term unemployed - 6 months+ anyway.

It will give them routine ie getting up in the morning and it has to carry some weight with future employers if they can demonstrate reliability and time-keeping. Hopefully it would also make them feel useful and good about contributing.

Don't see why some would be so negative about it.

So you'd want to force someone into a full time 'voluntary' position just to earn their pennies from benefits? Like TS said, you can't expect someone to work a full time unpaid position when benefits would typically only cover 9 hours of work.

There is no real upside to it, the kind of experience from those types of jobs don't get you very far, few of these unpaid positions lead to actual employment and I'm guessing the unemployed will be depressed that they are working full time hours to receive a fraction that someone who is employed would earn.

The only people it benefits are the companies since it's free labour for them.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The government already tried this. The sort of jobs they gave them were shelf stacking in supermarkets. This meant that supermarkets could employ less salaried shelf stackers meaning more people became unemployed and less jobs were advertised and of course, it meant the supermarkets got free labour. If that person on JSA refused to stack shelves, they simply got their benefits stopped.... It was a win win for the Tories. If benefits were stopped they were no longer classed as unemployed and if they stacked shelves for their benefits, they were no longer classed as unemployed.

The trouble with that is, no matter which way you look at it, it is slave labour.

You would think they could find them something that would not take jobs from others - that is pointless.

What about work in charity shops for example , I have seen several shops advertising for volunteers. I know hospitals use volunteers for help with admin as another example. I'm sure there must be quite a bit out there if everyone concerned made an effort.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

So you'd want to force someone into a full time 'voluntary' position just to earn their pennies from benefits? Like TS said, you can't expect someone to work a full time unpaid position when benefits would typically only cover 9 hours of work.

There is no real upside to it, the kind of experience from those types of jobs don't get you very far, few of these unpaid positions lead to actual employment and I'm guessing the unemployed will be depressed that they are working full time hours to receive a fraction that someone who is employed would earn.

The only people it benefits are the companies since it's free labour for them.

I didn't necessarily say full-time, but whatever work they can find them with regard to things like childcare etc for single parents. Surely it doesn't have to be that complicated. 9 hours would be better than nothing.

[Tozzie]

no one should have to work for absolutely nothing. I'm all for people who are able bodied and well enough to be made to earn their government handouts though. If the 'living wage' is Ł7.30 or whatever it is and the unemployed get Ł73 a week then they should be told they have to do some kind of work for 10 hours a week. This would get the people who really don't want to work when they are quite capable of doing so off their butts and earning their own money. Obviously I know not everyone on unemployment benefit wants to be and would prefer to go out to work but its the idle bums that annoy me.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I didn't necessarily say full-time, but whatever work they can find them with regard to things like childcare etc for single parents. Surely it doesn't have to be that complicated. 9 hours would be better than nothing.

I think it would be quite productive if jobseekers could be placed one day a week in an area the have an interest in working in, any experience gained is going to help job chances more than doing 35 hours of applications

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I think it would be quite productive if jobseekers could be placed one day a week in an area the have an interest in working in, any experience gaobed is going to help job chances more than doing 35 hours of applications

I agree Cherie - it's experience that counts and if someone is unemployed for some time one day a week could amount to a reasonable amount of experience and just give them the edge.

[Cherie]

I really need to check my posts before hitting submit

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I didn't necessarily say full-time, but whatever work they can find them with regard to things like childcare etc for single parents. Surely it doesn't have to be that complicated. 9 hours would be better than nothing.

That's all well and good if it's in areas that can provide good experience and skills but most of these work placements don't offer that. It's all unskilled work and cheap labour in sectors that don't tend to value experience that much.

As it stands now, it's just a way to force people to work for a pittance in a role that won't ever lead to anything for them.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by ebandit

...with much experience of signing on i can add............never at any time was i expected to jobsearch for 35 hrs.............fulfilling my agreement only takes a few
mins a day

when under work programme and doing 'voluntary' work the 30 hr working week includes time for organised jobsearch + jobcentre advisors make allowance accepting
a reduced jobsearch diary

Mark L

Job searching for 35 hours a week did seem a bit of a reach tbf

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Job searching for 35 hours a week did seem a bit of a reach tbf

As far as I know (this is from what I have been told so may not be entirely accurate) when on universal credit you have to prove you are jobsearching 35 hours a week. I know years back they used to lie and say you had to sign up to the universal jobmatch site and log EVERYTHING you did and if it didn't add up to enough time they could (and did) sanction you off the back of it. Regardless of how many jobs applied for and such. It seemed really silly as...come on...what can you realistically do to search for that long every week when looking on the internet takes seconds and there are next to no jobs anyway. Yes a decent application can take a few hours, but there are not enough positions to spend all day everyday writing cover letters and tailoring your CV.