Leeds - what a dump!

[ungreat]

Be glad that folk like anit-pacer don't get the chance to make such policies...

Unfortunately they do....theres one called David Cameron

 

[anti-pacer]

I'm sorry mate but I don't agree with that at all. For most people on JSA looking for a job is a full time occupation and you are making it sound like a lifestyle choice which needs to be punished. The job market at the minute is terrible, I have just come out of a 7 month spell of unemployment, the job I got last month was one I originally applied for last September and didn't even get an interview, I re applied in December when they advertised 2 months work and actually got an interview following which they instantly offered me a permanent position. But hey, a few more months on the dole and you would have me picking up litter to teach me the error of my ways. This despite the previous 15 years working and paying in to the system to cover myself if things went wrong.

I too have experienced a few periods of unemployment, including last summer for almost 6 months, and I agree that the jobs market is terrible. Seemingly you've treated it as a full time job looking for work which is what Jobcentre Plus require you to do. Seemingly also you wanted to get a job, and I also note you were working for 15 years previously.

You were also 5 months off the 12 months unemployment where my suggestion would kick in. It's also a suggestion that countless other people have suggested.

Having worked in the welfare to work sector, I can tell you with confidence that a lot of people do choose benefits as a lifestyle choice. A lot of people do not want to work, simple as that. Before any of you tell me I'm wrong, go and get a job for a welfare to work provider and you'll quickly realise I'm right.

Should we have to support these people? No! These people now very quickly get sanctioned, which then leads to crime so they can feed themselves.

From my experience, the majority of people out of work for over 12 months choose to be. Not all obviously, but most. Why shouldn't these people earn their benefits? If you were doing things like street cleaning in exchange for your benefits, people would then start finding work. They would think "Well I'm working for £71.70, I might as well get a real job and work for a lot more". Don't forget also that DWP actually MAKE people work for free at places like Poundland.

The fact is programmes like Benefits Street have angered the nation, and more calls for this kind of thing have been made. Now you might be sitting there thinking that the programme isn't a true reflection of people on benefits, but trust me it's a very true reflection of a lot of them. Not everyone, not Fowler, not a lot of people, but spend 3 years trying to help people back into work and you'll realise there are many streets like James Turner Street.

Councils are facing more cuts, and some services should be ringfenced, such as care services, education, regeneration, etc. Councils also don't drop litter, the public do. I also suggested that people on probation should have to do it, as well as of course, people caught littering.

I found myself unlucky enough to have to do Community Payback 2 years ago. I thought I'd hate it, but the projects we completed gave me an enormous sense of pride and achievement. The downside was working alongside some people who clearly couldn't care less, and for who this way of life was the norm. That said, this was my first offence, a pretty minor one in the grand scheme, but I did the crime so did the punishment.

During my unemployment last year, and despite a pretty intense job search, I went out for 2 hours a time, twice a week and litter picked in my area. Equipment was provided by Wakefield Council, and I did my bit. I'd dropped none of that litter, but the satisfaction of putting something back into society was great. It even inspired 2 more people in my neighbourhood to do the same.

Many unemployed people do voluntary work, so I see little difference in this. I'd maybe tweek it slightly and make it compulsory on a case-by-case basis. If someone is showing that they want to work and that they're doing all they can, well then it's probably in nobody's interests that they go out and litter pick, etc. However, if people are blatantly doing very little, then they should have to do it.

Who would enforce it? DWP would work alongside councils, and anyone who didn't attend without good reason would be sanctioned, rather in the same way that happens if they miss Work Programme or Jobcentre appointments.

Litter removal needs to happen for obvious sanitation and health reasons. It's not just visually unpleasant, it's also a health risk. Councils would still need to maintain part of the service, but I see no reason why "Joe public" can't do their bit either. If the public saw the long-term unemployed giving something back, it would go a long way to ease the resentment that many have towards claimants.

Nobody is immune from ever being in a position where they have to claim benefits, but it's what you do to get back into work that counts. Fair play to Fowler for dedicating his time on benefits to get off them, and congratulations on the job mate. If ALL people on JSA were like Fowler, I wouldn't be typing this. Sadly though they're not.

Finally, litter picking is beneath NOBODY!

 

[bb21]

I'd maybe tweek it slightly and make it compulsory on a case-by-case basis. If someone is showing that they want to work and that they're doing all they can, well then it's probably in nobody's interests that they go out and litter pick, etc. However, if people are blatantly doing very little, then they should have to do it.

I am not sure how you can implement this. Policies will need to be prescribed with certain criteria, and what criteria (probably quantifiable ones) would you use to decide whether some people are "doing all they can" or "blatantly doing very little"?

Length of time off work is not a reliable one, as quite a lot of people in the current environment can be unemployed for a long time through no fault of their own.

 

[anti-pacer]

I am not sure how you can implement this. Policies will need to be prescribed with certain criteria, and what criteria (probably quantifiable ones) would you use to decide whether some people are "doing all they can" or "blatantly doing very little"?

Length of time off work is not a reliable one, as quite a lot of people in the current environment can be unemployed for a long time through no fault of their own.

Length of time is one indicator they use. After 6 months you are tasked with more conditions against your benefits and after 12 months even more, including mandatory workplace assignments and full attendance of the Work Programme.

Through their "Universal Jobmatch" website they can track what you're doing to look for work. This is the same site you log your search activity on, and certainly at Wakefield JCP you are given so many actions a week that you must meet to get your benefit. Mine was 39, others are as high as 90, again dependent on the person.

They have majorly stepped up their game because of people using benefits as a lifestyle choice. I live above an alcoholic who during one of his sober conversations told me that "work isn't for him", and how he wouldn't be able to drink at work. Tell me, why should WE pay for that?

My idea will never get off the ground, despite some politicians also wanting this. Why? Human rights of course! Well isn't it against our human right to have to dodge beer bottles and dog mess whilst walking out and about?

I certainly see no reason why litterers shouldn't be made to clean the streets (cue me getting opposition to this), and also those on Community Payback.