Working for your Unemployment Benefit

[Octopus Rex]

In the UK, claimers of Jobseeker's Allowance(JSA, or unemployment benefit) can be asked to work 30 hours a week for up to 8 weeks for government-office, high-street chain or charity, or they will lose their benefit. This is known as the Mandatory Work Activity program and is aimed to get unemployed people back into the workplace and a working frame of mind. Often they end up doing the same work as those already there (eg stacking shelves at Tesco).

Just for reference, the minimum wage here is £6.08 per hour, JSA nets you £64 a week - so 30 hours on minimum wage is £180 a week minus taxes.

Personally I'm pretty strongly against this for several reasons:
1. if there's a job that needs doing, why aren't you paying someone to do it?
2. The guy next to them is doing the same thing, but they're getting paid a lot more for it.
3. You're doing work, and you're getting paid. Isn't that then a job? If so, then why are they getting less then the minimum wage for it?
4. You're volunteering for a charity and getting paid nothing - but the guy next to you is getting paid £64 a week by the government - how does that work? Is this a new way that you might as well get paid if you're going to do charity work?
5. The taxpayer is paying the JSA, yet the corporation is getting the man-hours for free - I'd rather line corporate pockets with my tax money as little as possible thanks (Tesco will have had 168,000 hours of free labour in the past four months if all 1400 claimants they took in that time worked 30 hours a week)

I understand the anti-layabout impulse certainly, but really I can't see any argument for this other than "bloody lazy bastards freeloading on my tax money, let's MAKE 'em work instead!" What do you guys think? And is there something similar in America or I have I mis-heard that?

[Aron_DeTomado]

Putting unemployed people to work for their benefits is fine. Putting them to the kind of work that would otherwise have been done by an employee? Not so much. I'm rather fine with sending them to work for charities, but sending them to businesses is just subsidising the private sector through the back door. It is unfair to the competing companies who can't keep their costs as low, and it is unfair to the people who get payed a bogus wage.

Of course, none of this would probably happen in the first place if it wasn't for bullshit like minimum wages. Companies are always going to hire as much labour as they can afford, and setting a minimum wage, whether it is done by the government through legislation or by unions through collective bargaining, will only mean they can afford to hire less labour.

[Jonny]

It's not a new thing, when I was unemployed as a teenager the new Labour government had just brought in the New Deal system in which we were farmed out to work for charities or we'd lose benefit. At 19 I was receiving around £36 a week benefit and I got shopped out to work for a conservation charity which was paid by the council to do jobs like resurfacing woodland trails and relining the local canal. They used that money to pay for the equipment they used while offering conservation holidays in the countryside.

I did get a £15 a week bonus, so there I was working 36 hours a week outside digging ditches, lugging railway sleepers around and shovelling gravel, for £51 a week. If I refused I'd lose all benefit for six months.

Naturally I truly hate this concept, but not just for my own experience with it. As far as I'm concerned it takes fully paid jobs away from people who desperately need them and uses labour paid at a fraction of the legitimate minimum wage to replace them. If it needs doing make it a proper job at minimum wage and people will flock to apply for it, don't use people who can't say no to get it done at a fraction of the cost.

[Paladin]

Pointless emotionally driven policy. If it's work that you actually need done, then simply institute a policy of hiring only unemployed people to do that and actually hire them and pay them a normal wage. If you're making up busywork just to force them to sing for their supper, it doesn't serve an actual purpose, and is therefore not productive/has no utility.

[Akranadas]

My Mother works in Employment services and we have a similar system here in Australia. The reason these systems make the unemployed work for their benefits is to simply help them build a resume, it's a hell of a lot harder to get a job when you are out of work, doing nothing and collecting benefits, But if your new potential employer sees you are currently volunteering for charity work, it looks like you have a drive to work and makes you look better as a potential employee. Often times, the unemployed getting benefits are contracted to those businesses through agreements, it's not going to be steady work for them, hence why the benefits continue and often times those companies can't afford to take on a new full time employee, it all comes down to building up your resume.

Having large gaps of time where you didn't work is harmful for your job prospects as employers will always ask what were you doing for the time you were unemployed.

[Sentinel]

I was actually quite happy with the idea of it when the Irish government announced something similar last year.

I was on the dole for 2 years saving to get back to college and I would have loved to have gotten a job, but unfortunately I never got placed.. No one should have a free ride. Working a 30 hour week for nothing is a bit much, but I certainly agree with being forced to work, unless you have some reason why you can't.

In Ireland, when they introduced it, if they placed you in work, it was only part time and you were upgraded to maximum benefit, which is ~€190 a week. So if you were on a reduced rate it would actually benefit you to work too. You were also allowed to work part time on the side without losing the Job seekers if I remember it right.

[Jonny]

£170ish a week? Blimey, it's £64 here and that is not easy to live on. It's certainly not a free ride, it's just enough to feed yourself and pay the bills for a week.

I've got no problem at all with making people accept jobs that turn up, it's not like you can be choosy on the dole, but sod the idea of making people work a full week for nothing or they lose their pittance. I'd be extremely dubious at the idea of it looking good on a CV either, certainly nobody gave a damn about it when I was a youngster because they knew full well I'd been forced to go there and it didn't show anything about me as a worker. Voluntary volunteer work shows that you've got a bit of drive and work ethic, forced "volunteer" work shows that you're just smart or scared enough to not lose your dole money, which isn't a great selling point.

[darkelf]

Akra, for charity work, yes. But if you are actually forced to work at a company who would otherwise have to pay you a lot more to do the same work then you should be paid that amount. There's a minimum wage for a reason, if I am to work at a company to keep my benefits, those benefits damn well be the same as everyone else working that same job for said company.

[Akranadas]

darkelf, technically, you are employed by the government when you are doing work for the dole, as they pay your 'wage'. Companies that take on the unemployed generally do so due to the government providing incentives for them to do so, they often don't have room to hire those unemployed people and instead us them as contractual work.

[Octopus Rex]

I don't think stacking shelves looks good on anyone's CV. They even make graduates do it. Also, a long period of inappropriate work is just as bad as no work these days. "So... you want to be a technical manager, but you've been working in Tesco for the past 18 months?......huh"

[darkelf]

Akra, work is work, if I have to work for dole then it should be minimum wage (again, charity by it's non-paid nature is exempt). Doesn't matter if the company wouldn't normally hire me, if I work for them they (or as you say the state) should have to pay at least minimum wage for the work I do.

[Akranadas]

Actually, Rex. Any work on your resume is better than no work. Never underestimate the power of experience, even if its something like stacking shelves, you're new potential employer will more than likely call up Tesco and ask questions about your work performance, how many days you took off, if you started on time and how you worked with other people.

It doesn't matter if it was a meaningless job, the fact that you had a job and held it for 18 months is a good indicator that you like to stay somewhere and work hard.

darkelf, Work is Work, but the way you are hired is different. You are there more or less to build a skill set and help you gain employment.

[Octopus Rex]

It's really not. It does matter if it's a meaningless. From what I've read on job advice and my own experience, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Jonny]

I've got to go with Rex here, the only jobs for which an employer is ever going to think "Can this person get his arse out of bed, be on time, do the job and not quit immediately" are the shitty minimum wage unskilled labour jobs. If you're going for anything which requires qualifications then your ability to do the basics are presupposed because you needed to have them to get the qualifications. Whether you've been on the dole for 18 months or stacked shelves is totally irrelevant unless you're going for another shelf-stacking level of job.

Being a shelf stacker for 18 months could even be worse for you in certain circumstances, as it could be viewed as being happy with a meaningless job or showing a lack of drive and ambition, whereas being on the dole for a skilled worker is just unlucky.

[Akranadas]

This whole "Don't want to get stuck doing a meaningless job" is how we've got into the position our society is in the first place, the whole notion that minimum wage jobs are beneath the average person is silly. Any work is good work for your employment resume, all jobs look at if you can get to work on time, do your job, haven't had disagreements with management and how many average days you take off, even high paying jobs.

You guys just need to admit, you don't want to work unless you are getting paid the top dollar for your time, in the meanwhile; there are plenty of immigrants that will snap up that long paying work inwhich results in less jobs for those stuck on unemployment benefits.

[darkelf]

No akra, all I want is that if I work I am to be paid the LEGAL minimum wage. Anything less and I would not work and possibly sue the state if they try to withhold dole money as this is essentially forced labor/slavery.

[Inq]

Shit kicker chain gangs. Weeds out the lazy people, so the genuine can remain (meaning you can lift the benefit due to less people).

Get them doing community services which cannot currently be funded. Expand graffiti removal services, park cleaning etc in low-income areas. Community rejuvenating projects. Charge a nominal fee to local councils/cities for these services, and use the money to fund training programs for participants. E.G 4 days work, 1 day a week free education. This way you could get all unemployed to a level where they have finished high school and gaining tertiary qualifications.

[Akranadas]

No akra, all I want is that if I work I am to be paid the LEGAL minimum wage. Anything less and I would not work and possibly sue the state if they try to withhold dole money as this is essentially forced labor/slavery.

That's why you try and find a job while doing work for the dole, its not forced labour; by being on unemployment benefits you are being a burden to society. Everyone around you is paying taxes in order to stop you from starving to death. You might as well to be some benefit to the community and your government as they are the ones giving you money to support you in your time of unemployment. The minimum wage only applies to people who are actively employed, if the government is placing you to do community service type labour jobs, then they are in charge of your payments, not the company you might be working with.

They do this in order to entice you to get out of the benefits system because it is simply unsustainable. You don't want to earn the amount you get for the work you do? Get a job. Simple. Even the minimum wage jobs are better then being on benefits, yet there are plenty of people (even young people) who want everything handed to them for no effort. The London riots are a classic example of why people need to be forced to see that benefits aren't a good living.

I agree with Inq's suggestion, the unemployed should be put to work within the community. Failing that, conscripted into the military to do non-combat specific jobs (Plumbers, Carpenters, Cooks ect) until they have the skills to be sent back into the community if the choose.

[Busby]

Akranadas there is a job shortage going on in Britain right now. Look here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17039513

TLDR: There are more people working part time rather then full time but want to work full time then ever before. Of the 48,000 people considered newly considered unemployed, two thirds of them are women.

The figures suggest that women are being hit hardest by the rise in unemployment and that we are increasingly reliant on part-time jobs.

Of the 48,000 increase in the number of people becoming unemployed - 32,000 of those were women losing their jobs.

This, it's thought, reflects the cuts to public sector jobs where more women tend to work.

Older women in particular appear to be vulnerable to losing their jobs, with the number of over 50 year-old women losing their jobs up by 20% over the past year.

The figures also suggest an increasing reliance on part-time jobs.

The number of people working part time is the highest since records began.

The number in part-time work rose by 70,000 in the past quarter. In other words the fall in full-time employment is being masked by more people taking part-time jobs.

1.) Government cuts government jobs.
2.) Government forces unemployed to do government jobs, for less then the wage they would normally receive.
3.) ???
4.) Profit Gov. is still fucked.

[Akranadas]

@Bubsy, Where does it say in that Article you linked that the UK Government cut jobs?

The jobs that unemployed people do isn't Government jobs, those jobs are more manual labour and low skill required jobs. The unemployed here (Australia) can also get free training by employment services who compete (Government payments) to place them into jobs, so you actually have people trying to find you a job that you will stay in for about 6 months.

The UK's situation is down to the recession, plain and simple. The should simply immigrate to another country if there is no job prospects left in the UK, we're practically screaming for unskilled and skilled workers down here.

[Guardian X]

Inq said:
Shit kicker chain gangs. Weeds out the lazy people, so the genuine can remain (meaning you can lift the benefit due to less people).

Get them doing community services which cannot currently be funded. Expand graffiti removal services, park cleaning etc in low-income areas. Community rejuvenating projects. Charge a nominal fee to local councils/cities for these services, and use the money to fund training programs for participants. E.G 4 days work, 1 day a week free education. This way you could get all unemployed to a level where they have finished high school and gaining tertiary qualifications.

Actually, reintroducing chain gangs is being tried in Maricopa County, Arizona, USA. The notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio is attempting to cut down on the cost of correctional facilities by having prisoners do chain gang work on a voluntary basis. The chain gangs don't do graffiti removal, but they do garbage removal along highways, manual earthmoving, burial of indigents and other unidentified corpses (that last bit is supposedly to give them a taste of their future if they continue on the criminal path; dying alone, unknown, and unmourned), etc. There are also all-female chain gangs in that county as well. Arpaio claims that instead of being a drain on society, the prisoners working the chain gangs are giving back by experiencing honest work, along with the opportunity to earn education credits and perks while staying in jail (though apparently perks such as sunhats and more frequent hydration while working aren't being tried just yet, if you judge by the footage of the prisoners working). No word on whether this could catch on, though.

[titlams]

I'm going to answer the first 5 questions to try and make this a bit simpler.

1. if there's a job that needs doing, why aren't you paying someone to do it? - There is no job that needs doing, these companies already have the employees to do the job. Your surplus staff.
2. The guy next to them is doing the same thing, but they're getting paid a lot more for it. - So the hell what? this is the same in any business. Not everyone who does the same thing is entitled to the same money.
3. You're doing work, and you're getting paid. Isn't that then a job? If so, then why are they getting less then the minimum wage for it?- You are currently getting payed to do nothing. Why are you getting anything for it?
4. You're volunteering for a charity and getting paid nothing - but the guy next to you is getting paid £64 a week by the government - how does that work? Is this a new way that you might as well get paid if you're going to do charity work? - Honestly not sure about this.
5. The taxpayer is paying the JSA, yet the corporation is getting the man-hours for free - I'd rather line corporate pockets with my tax money as little as possible thanks (Tesco will have had 168,000 hours of free labour in the past four months if all 1400 claimants they took in that time worked 30 hours a week)- The companies part subsides the pay. It is not free. Nor is the insurance or anything else they need to proved.

Ultimately, if you and someone else both finished uni with the exactly same degrees. The person with most work experience will get the job. Not only does it show a willingness to work and improve. It also show pride in the person because they are willing to work the "lesser" jobs while waiting for a better one. Instead of just waiting for a better job to come to them.

[Paladin]

Actually, if person X and person Y both finished schools with the same degrees, the one who is more personable and interviews better will get the job, regardless of work experience. Physical attractiveness also helps here, no one wants ugly coworkers, although there are corner cases where being too attractive can hurt you (But that's pretty much outweighed by the vast majority of jobs you'll get easily).

[GeoffS]

In all of the professions I know about work experience counts for far more than interview skills or looks. I'm sorry that you seem to live in an area that is so shallow and insincere.

[Octopus Rex]

Akra - just to let you know, I've worked in factories, chain stores, warehouses, as a typist, as a bartender, in random offices, and now as a web developer (but not even for a year yet). So go easy on the "you're just a work shy bastard" line eh?

Ultimately of course, it all depends on the interviewer. Some might raise an eyebrow at a random stint at Tesco for their Chief Techical Officer, others might value it. But the issue here is mandatory work. And complying with mandatory work really isn't going to look good on anyone's CV. And further CV's are not what they say the mandatory work is to help with, it's supposed to be help with your "getting-in-to-work" mind-set. It's only 8 weeks of work, and will only kick in after a good few months on the dole so you'll have a big gap regardless - this is not about having a continuous history of work, and this is not about keen-ness (after all you didn't find it for yourself).

Note: you do have to be actively looking for a job to get Job Seeker's Allowance in the first place. It's not just for shits and giggles.

[DeafMute]

Ive been looking for apprenticeships because of the town I live in there is so few jobs that mostly consist of being a manager / supervisor.
So I am saying I dont mind working towards something aslong as I gain what im seeking at the end.

As for this 8 week program, Id sooner be a temp based contract for the company, get paid min wage perhaps as the gov cant except those willing to work to live on peanuts. work 8-16weeks for them and then see what happens at the end. If it works out, excellent a steady job, if not well thats more work experience under my belt. But yeah I feel ya pain Rex, shit sucks atm.

[Retroboy]

Actually, Rex. Any work on your resume is better than no work.

As someone who recruits regularly, I'll weigh in that this is important, but it's also important as to what you do versus what you want to do.

Here's a case study. We're assessing some resumes that responded to a senior business analyst posting and one we've received shows some good experience. However, she returned to work after a one-year break to take a job as a medical clinic receptionist with, likely, a substantial pay cut. In the interview, we'll ask "why". Will the answer indicate a desire to change careers? Did she help out a friend or relative in need and earn some money along the way? Or were the hours perfect for her home and family situation and she didn't want full-time work that might involve travel? Was she seeking, but not finding, a more relevant job during that term?

In this case, we would not look at that receptionist time as valid experience when assessing her because she's seeking a skilled position from us that benefits best from directly related experience, so it's somewhat meaningless if not slightly negative in this case, depending on the reason she did it. We'll be looking instead at the number of years of direct business analysis experience that she obtained before her hiatus to qualify her, and seeking to test that she's really on-board in coming back into a BA role.

A different case study is if we were looking for a new hire with a Computer Science-like degree or equivalent training as a junior BA to mentor and grow within our organization. That experience at the clinic would have demonstrated work experience that involved some public interaction, and would qualify her more than someone without any work experience at all.

So, in summary, the work-to-get-benefits rule (which I agree with, provided the work is meaningful and does not replace a "real job") can benefit entry-level personnel or people that are not pursuing high-skill positions. But it'd be useless as an assessment criteria for someone that's seeking a higher level position.

In all of the professions I know about work experience counts for far more than interview skills or looks.

What I read into Paladin's post is that if two equally experienced candidates interview for one position, the one that presents themselves better will usually get the job. This is a fact, and is particularly true of higher level business jobs that require people interaction as a major component of their responsibilities, such as a public relations representative or a senior process consultant in a consulting firm.

[GeoffS]

What I read into Paladin's post is that if two equally experienced candidates interview for one position, the one that presents themselves better will usually get the job.

But that is the direct opposite of what Paladin actually said... "Actually, if person X and person Y both finished schools with the same degrees, the one who is more personable and interviews better will get the job, regardless of work experience." The bolding is mine.



Edit: Also, hai Retro, long time no see!

[Belgarion]

There is a big push by our government to create 20000 jobs for prisoners created by private companies and not the state. I will try to dig up the link. But if you do this then its 20000 jobs taken away from law abiding citizens

[Octopus Rex]

@DeafMute - Just in case you were wondering, I do actually have a job right now! I've not had to do any mandatory work.

@Retro - how would eight weeks of mandatory work in a supermarket look on a resume?

[Nanaki]

Of course, none of this would probably happen in the first place if it wasn't for bullshit like minimum wages. Companies are always going to hire as much labour as they can afford, and setting a minimum wage, whether it is done by the government through legislation or by unions through collective bargaining, will only mean they can afford to hire less labour.

Eh, I am pretty sure this was peddled before as trickle-down economics, and I think we can see that it was a load of shit. Companies will only hire as much labor as they need (supply and demand and all that). If they could spend less on labor and get away with it, the monetary savings would likely end up going to the company's bottom line instead of more workers. Much like what happened when taxes were lowered and the money ended up going into CEOs pockets instead.

I knew someone back in high school who worked at a place whom made it a point to hire any potential worker, as a result they had far more workers than actual work to do, and the aformentioned person would only be able to work couple of hours every two weeks or something like that.

[titlams]

Note: you do have to be actively looking for a job to get Job Seeker's Allowance in the first place. It's not just for shits and giggles.

That is the idea, but it is not true. It is woefully easy to make you look like you are finding a job while doing nothing to actually find a job.

Anyway as for the work experience, I do agree with pally on when it comes to interviews it is the better interviewee at the time who normally gets the job. However getting from the CV to Interview requires a you to stand out of the other hundred applicants. Spelling mistakes (and for the record missing the ltd of a limited company) will get you removed from the pile. Then working down until they have a reasonable amount of people to interview. Work experience is more and more likely to be relevant the more people who apply for the job.

BTW the scheme is not 30-hours a week for 8 weeks but 30 hours over 8 weeks, according the Radio on the way home from work. Edit: I can't actually find anything that gives the terms. So I might of heard wrong.

[Paladin]

Meh, work experience is obviously a factor... Two individuals with vastly disparate work experiences will be weighed differently, but I've always found a person's physical appearance and their apparent personality when they interview is a greater advantage compared to work experience. Obviously you need to actually get to the interview stage for that to matter, but I've found that people will hire someone less qualified if they seem like they would be enjoyable to work with, over someone more qualified who seems like a drag.

My work experience is somewhat limited in terms of depth in any particular field, and long stretches of self-employment, but I've gotten over 50% of the jobs I've actually gotten to the interview stage on, because I'm really good at (mis)representing myself as both competent/confident, and fun to be around. I'm actually a grumpy old man, but I'm good at pretending to be fun and personable for brief periods of time.

[Mantaray]

im sorry guys. work experience shelf-stacking is null and void. unless your trying to be employed as a shelf stacker.

i get paid £6 an hour to stand behind a till for 3 hours in the morning. it is the most boring and tedious job in the world because it's essentially paid idleness broken up by a couple of customers who are actually pretty cool old guys/regular paper-purchasers etc.

i've got 2 years of 'experience' doing this. -EVERY- job in the south (i read the recruitment papers hot off the press. literally at 5am) requires RELEVANT work experience that isn't shelf stacking and till-popping

we get work placements in every other month. my manager loves it. a guy in for 7 hours a day that he doesnt have to pay for to stack shelves? brilliant.
it's completely unfair. im employed and missing out on VERY valuable overtime to some shitty government scheme that doesn't work.

there are no numbers of people who have been employed after work placements because it doesn't happen.

most placements are 35hours a week for £64

~£2 an hour is retarded.

[Argonaut]

Erm, By working for my entire life so far and paying national insurance on every single payslip ever, surely I have already contributed towards the time when my life hits hard times and I am entitled to JSA without having to earn it. I've put into the pot so when things go a bit shitty I can take out of the pot.

This throws into the argument whether JSA should be "free" to immigrants who have not contributed financially to the UK society. The argument could also expand into "My father, Mother and Grandfather etc paid national insurance, surely it's time for our family to take something back". There's another thread about mandating birth control in the US that has some similar arguments already springing up there. Why should someone who has never contributed to National Insurance be entitled to a Boob Job on the NHS?Wow. I've opened up a shit ton of trouble there...

As for making people work for their benefits then there are other effects that haven't really been touched upon. It is quiet easy to be despondent and self pitying when you're not doing anything and although it is easy to say "get off your arse and get a Job" the reality of needing to keep getting out and getting knocked back is soul destroying for anyone. Simply getting out of the house and avoiding procrastinating activities (such as going to the pub, watching endless shyte television or writing on community message boards) can help some people. If you're working in Tescos stacking shelves, you should be paid the same as an employee, as... er... you're time is being employed to fulfill a role. For the individual it is a piss take, for the onlooking society it is all about "well done, make the spongers earn their money to piss it up the wall!"

The undelying fact of the matter is, people on benefits in the UK are often seen to have a higher quality of life and more disposable income that those working their arse off. Unfortunately this is often true and creates the kind of environment where this kind of initiative happens to appease the tax paying masses.

[Carl]

The undelying fact of the matter is, people on benefits in the UK are often seen to have a higher quality of life and more disposable income that those working their arse off. Unfortunately this is often true and creates the kind of environment where this kind of initiative happens to appease the tax paying masses.

This is kind of inevitable though. A massive chunk of modern western economies runs on tertiary job, and particuarly retail and leishure and it's direct supporting industries. any wage rise in those feeds allmost instantly into the shop prices, which immiddieatlly cancels out the effect of the rise. That means the "barely get by" point will be roughly equivelent to the commonest wage in the system. This is what determines much of the base oporating cost after all. Unfortunatlly the commonest wage also means the majorit of the workers are living on or just above that "get you by" point.

And what is JSA supposed to provide you with? Just enough to "get you by". This whole "better on benefits" issue will continue to exist until we re-work our economies somewhat to be less focused on jobs who's wages so directly impact the price of living day to day. (Don't get me wrong, there's some lee-way in the current system too, profit margins, (driven by competion which produces constant fluctuations), and import to export ratios for example can both drive things in more positive or negative directions).

I'm also largely with Argonaut and others here. By all means get them doing work, but pay them like you would anyone else for it. And i think i'll leave it there as a full rant about the problems with the unemployment system and benefits would go on for a fair old while.

[DeafMute]

I believe this better on benifits only applies to the chavvy PoS's who spawn countless offspring.
Just 1 person claming for themselfs, take myself for example gets just over £50 a week. a week, compared to the £180+ id be getting for a min wage job.
So its hardly better off is it?

[Octopus Rex]

Indeed, I've have been on JSA, many years ago, and it's not fun and you'd be better off with any job than being on JSA.

However, I think what people are mixing this up with is when someone gets their JSA and then goes and gets council tax exemption, and then housing benefit on top as well, and so can get quite a lot of stuff paid for - there are certainly people who know how to work the system and get these and more (some disingenuously claim disability benefit too). No-one I know has done any of that, though many of have been on just JSA.

It seems to me that attaching the mandatory work (or whatever change) to the JSA alone without addressing the other parts is part of the issue here, as the JSA is the first port of call for everyone. JSA doesn't equate to as much money as getting your rent and /or bills paid for you by the council. I think pinning everything on JSA can unduly punishes those who are already in hard times.

[Carl]

@Octupus: Except that things like tax exemptions and housing benefit exist almost explicitlly FOR the unemployed, it's not exploiting the system, it's why they exist. If your eligible, (i wasn't when i was on JSA as i was living at home), and not caliming it your A) a numpty. B) tottally unable to support yourself the rent of an average house is most of the money JSA provides gone, gas or electricity would be impossibble, let alone council tax, and lets not talk about food. No one i know of when discussing JSA means, just JSA, they mean JSA and attendent other benefits. This whole thing is actually one of my biggest hate points with the benefits system. There's so many diffrent benefits for so many diffrent things, when virtually everyone is entitelled to several of them. Why are they a bunch of seperate payments, instead of one big one, which gets reduced if you have fortunate circumstances, (like my living at home). It makes a damm sight simpler system.

@DeafMute: The problem is that once you start factoring in all those extra benefits, somone on the Nat minimum wage often isn't much better off on 40 hours than people on benefits becuase to enshure people have enough to survive on they get all those afformentioned extras beyond simple JSA on it's own. And this is really the benefits systems other flaw. In many cases it eitheir avoids chargign you or gives you more money. It ends up being very inefficent and some genuine circumstances can actualy result in people having even larger than intended amounts of benefits. Child benmefit is the worst, why is it that a benefit we give peopkle to help them feed and clothe their children is money? Why not run a rationing style token system where they can redeem them for basic (i.e. non-brand name), clothing and foods. The goverment pays the stores cost, (or only a very small profit), for the goods the tokens are redeemed for. End result, the kids get what they nmeed, the parents aren't spending it on expensive stuff for the kids, the goverment only pays what people actualy use, and because the goverment is paying less/no profit and no tax it costs less, (seriouslly just cutting VAT off everything would knock a sixth off the benefits bill).

That last point touches on the finial issue. Benefits packages are allways a littile on the generous side because they have to account for varying living costs. As such in the most expensive area's people are barely scraping by, while the claiments in the cheapest area's are finding themselves with plenty to spare.

[boolybooly]

FYI my opinion. I have been discussing this in the comments section of the Guardian,Disabled people face unlimited unpaid work or cuts in benefit - the documents, bit too tired now to do a full response, so see Heretica's comments, which I agree with.

I will quote some stuff here for your convenience.

Point is there is a case for saying that at the root of this the insurance company Unum is lobbying the UK government to create a benefits system which favours its own product, employment insurance i.e. a conflict of interests has been improperly ignored by those involved. David Cameron is on record as saying that after MPs expenses political lobbying was the next area of potential corruption which required reform, he did not say that for no reason.

I am reminded of the voluntary Manpower Services Commission Community Programme which Thatcher got rid of.

Personally I thought it was an excellent scheme and at the time, as a recent graduate, I worked as an MSC supervisor because I saw it as socially just. It gave people an opportunity to regain pride and purpose and did something useful of benefit to everyone in return for their marginally enhanced benefits (and for me a very humble wage). But apparently it was considered ideologically unsound for the Tory government to spend money on improving the country. That was a painful lesson in the madness of Tory policy making.

The problem with today's scheme is perverse incentivisation for those on the receiving end of alms and the conditions attached, yet again, making this compulsory instead of an enticing opportunity. If bankers need incentives then so do other people, we are all only human. Instead of being given the chance to better themselves the disabled are being stigmatised by a government evincing resent at their apparent dependency and imposing a punitive obligation.

It is inevitable when governments construct policy through the lens of the tabloid stereotypes that it is easy to forget to consider what it is like for the human beings who actually experience the results of policy.

What has changed between the days of the MSCCP and today that makes it OK to spend money on motivating the unemployed and slaughter the sacred cow disability? While sheer numbers of claimants and the need for reform may play a part, it strikes me that it is mixed up with the unkind stigmatisation of disability claimants as "scroungers" as spin, which was used (under Labour) to divert public attention from justifiable outrage at the MPs expenses scandal. That was when the benefits fraud publicity began.

To the public eye it appears that MPs are now giving the reform of benefits their full attention in preference to putting their own house in order. Many are convinced that party divisions nonwithstanding, when it comes to enjoying the good life, MPs are as thick as thieves.

It is not that benefits do not need reform, they do but it goes wrong when Westminster is too harsh on the disabled and inhumane in their conception because they are covering their own guilt and shame. People can see that intuitively, they do not need to intellectualise about it and it is why grass roots opposition has become stronger. We know we must make government reform itself.

The heart of this matter for the disabled is ATOS assessment which is provably biased and in this way breaks human rights law. This assessment should fairly distinguish between those who need support to be contributors and those who must be supported even though they cannot contribute to a significant degree. The iniquities meeted out by this company are fuel to public outrage as well they should be.

Top levels of the Civil Service are ... compromised. "Reforms" allegedly devised by IDS, turned out to have already been almost entirely drafted by Unum to create an extremely lucrative market for its own products. Instead of exposing the agenda of vested interest, Miliband still tries to pretend that Unum doesn't exist.

Since the logic and dogma upon which destruction of Welfare, Benefits and the NHS is based is that of Unum, avoiding any mention of that corporate's existence and influence makes it impossible for Labour to do anything other than agree with the present government.

Also my own response / angle.

What you say about Unum, sadly, makes a lot of sense Heretica. I have already encountered Unum in relation to the field of ME research where they have been accused of using similar tactics of illegitimate media and political influence to further their financial interests.

In the USA I understand insurers used to pay out for a physical illness for life and a mental illness for two years (EDIT before the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act though the wiki suggests that this is circumvented by insurers), Prof Malcom Hooper and others consider this is the financial reasoning behind the way ME was for 25 years incorrectly stigmatised as a mental illness in the literature by paid employees of Unum and the British establishment and government have been lobbied in various ways to ensure that they conform to Unum's agenda.

See MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOWTO MAKE A DISEASE DISAPPEAR by Prof Malcolm Hooper, for more on Unum's other alleged deleterious activities.

Since 1993, the giant US permanent health insurance company UNUMProvident has been advising the UK DWP about the most effective ways of curtailing sickness benefit payments. The PACE Trial is run by psychiatrists of the Wessely School, most of whom work for the medical and permanent health insurance industry, including UNUMProvident. These psychiatrists insist – in defiance of both the World Health Organisation and the significant biomedical evidence about the nature of it ?? that “CFS/ME” is a behavioural disorder, into which they have subsumed ME, a classified neurological disorder whose separate existence they deny. Their beliefs have been repudiated in writing by the World Health Organisation.

[the_living_god]

Aron, before minimum wages were instituted people got exploited and paid barely enough to survive (in many cases, not enough to survive). If that's the case then more people will end up on welfare anyway (because they don't earn enough to support themselves), defeating the whole point of unregulated wage rates (supposedly being that employers hire more people). Whether more employed people earning far less money are able to subsidise increased welfare recipients is another important question to consider. Besides, there is a limit on how much labour an employer can use either way - even if he can technically pay them $1 an hour, he may simply not need 100 employees, he may only need 10. Minimum wage has it's downsides, but to call it bullshit is very narrow minded.

[Fat_Bloke]

MVA is part of a wider work program that intends to make sure that a person is always better taking a job than remaining on JSA. This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable position as those on JSA are paid for by taxpayers. This is something that really does need to happen as the social security budget has been rising for too many years and at too high a rate. The widespread use and abuse of the system to gain large amounts of money at the cost of others is very well documented. MVA will not only provide a disincentive to those that will not get a job but also provide valuable experience to those getting into the workplace as well as reacquainting the long term unemployed with the practices of the workplace.

As to boolybooly's post, I would implore people not to be taken in by this nonsense. Go and look for these things yourself, do not be drawn into the tin foil hat brigade that is evidenced above. Up untill boolybooly's post people seem to have managed to keep this thread an interesting and reasoned discussion. However, dumping a series of quotes from The Guardian comments section brings to bear the lunatic fringe of one side of this debate (the equivalent of this on the other side would be the commants section of the Mail). Let me say this very clearly, there is not a single assertion in boolybooly's post that is based in reliable evidence of any nature including the Guardian article from which the comments stem. Once again, go and look these things up for yourself, remember that all legislation is available for free here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/bi...d-legislation/

[Mantaray]

MVA is part of a wider work program that intends to make sure that a person is always better taking a job than remaining on JSA. This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable position as those on JSA are paid for by taxpayers.

not at the expense of employment. forcing people to work for their benefits in lieu of managers needing another employee makes NO sense.

there's enough stuff to do in my store for at least 6 more hours daily per week.
we could either. A. get someone in on a 6 hour shift+break at £6 an hour. (£180 a week for basicly unskilled labour is all right)
or B, get some JSA guy in and do it for free at 35 hours a week.

MVA will not only provide a disincentive to those that will not get a job but also provide valuable experience to those getting into the workplace as well as reacquainting the long term unemployed with the practices of the workplace.

how is taking away time in which people can go to interviews and search for jobs a proactive way to get them employed? also. how is shelf stacking valuable experience of workplace practice?
the only businesses that accept JSA's are shops. construction industry wont take them because they need weeks and literal hundreds of pounds of safety training to even be ALLOWED on-site and offices just plain don't hire tea-boys any more.

the only useful experience granted to the JSA is of shop work which is great if your applying to work in a shop... but none are hiring because they can get JSA's to do it! OH NO! circle.

if there was a scheme that helped people on JSA's get QUALIFIED to do something. there's loads of apprenticeship schemes out there that do actually pay minimum wage. (£2.40 an hour for 16-19yr olds, more for 20+)
i know colleges do 6 week courses that push you out the other end with BTEC national certificates in everything from IT to business and even accounting.

[DeafMute]

So say this does become the norma, employers bring in JSA ppl to work for free.
Whilst the JSA guy/gal gets current work history, whats stopping the employer from pushing these JSA ppl aside when there time is up instead of offering them employment? And instead the employer takes on another JSA worker. This system will be abused.

[Mantaray]

whats stopping the employer from pushing these JSA ppl aside when there time is up instead of offering them employment? And instead the employer takes on another JSA worker. This system will be abused.

this. is exactly how the current system is used. we go through JSA's like paper towels. in fact i believe the book store Waterstones was involved in a scandal recently were the CEO admitted that free JSA labour was a big part of their labour strategy to keep profits up and costs down... i cant find the link to validate this right now that doesn't involve lolguardian bias. but you've just hit on the problem.

perhaps if the employer had to provide genuine reasons why NOT to employ a person after the 6 weeks...
that would work. then employers would never take on JSA's in case they get stuck with a shite one that they then have to employ, and instead would just advertise like normal people.
but then were back to square one and MVA is abolished. brilliant. now we can do something useful with the unemployed. like qualifications.

[Fat_Bloke]

I'm seeing a lot of people resting their arguements on the idea that MVA will hurt people's employment chances or, at least, have no impact on them. How do you square that with the fact that in the trials around 50% of those who have used the scheme have gone on to employment within 3 months of their placement? A notable example is Sainsbury's that has a similar scheme in which 3,400 people took up permanent places as a result of placements last year.

[Mantaray]

How do you square that with the fact that in the trials around 50% of those who have used the scheme have gone on to employment within 3 months of their placement?

can we see a source please?
getting a job within 3 months of a placement and saying the 2 are directly linked is like saying i had a prawn cocktail 3 weeks ago and now i have dioreah. they must be linked.

i cant find any documentation on sainsburys MVA-type thing so im going by what ive heard so, this is 2nd hand info.
Sainsburys scheme i believe is just as dasterdly. seeing as it is a scheme to find employees by changing the 'probation period' all normal jobs have into a 4 week low-pay trial and then still not actually having any responsibility to employ you even if they cant physically poke a hole in your performance. if they want to they can cycle their own JSA workers like everyone else does.

i argue that the reason 3,400 people get employed is because about as many other employees left. its no secret till work is not something people stay with and supermarkets never struggle with employment. there always has been, and will be hundreds of school leavers that normally take the place of till staff moving on. putting the JSA's in those places is just a re-allocation of unemployed people that then.. actually might not even get the job after there time is up.

[boolybooly]

As to boolybooly's post, I would implore people not to be taken in by this nonsense.

I just want to thank you for your endorsement Fat_Bloke.

Not my best prose I will admit but Unum's lobbying and influence is very real. I dont know if you have ever made an insurance claim on anything, but let me give you some advice, read the small print, insurers are notoriously unsympathetic, devious, unscrupulous and exclusively financially motivated, subject only to legal redress.

It took me a long time to understand this myself. I was once a conforming innocent too. The fact is that Unum paid psychiatrists to obfuscate CFS research the world over for decades and set out to deliberately corrupt government perspectives, branding all CFS as entirely psychological so they would not have to pay out on insurance for physical illness. They saw nothing wrong with that, it was within the rules as far as they were concerned. These psychiatrists hid behind a veneer of fair opinion and scientific debate but they were not playing the same game as other scientists who sought truth, they were acting as policy propagandists and they influenced government and MRC policy directly.

So having learned this about the way Unum operates it is not a great leap for me to realise that if Unum are involved in advising government on how to turn down and otherwise repel claimants and they are, for sure, they will be treating it behind tightly closed doors with their customary amorality. They apparently consider it necessary to "sour the milk" so to speak of free benefits, to wean the children from their mothers teets. But the devious amoral perspective they employ has circumvented the requirements of government to care for people, because as a profession they don't think like a government and it has lead for example to biased and abusive assessments by ATOS which were requiring doctors in their employ to break the Hippocratic oath to perform assessments which were breaking human rights law in a way which has lead to suicides among vulnerable claimants. That is why it is not really a laughing matter.

So one has to be very careful not to fall for the tabloid perspectives that the propaganda war employs. They are not coming from a good place.

IMHO it is fair for people receiving support from their society to contribute to that society unless they are seriously ill. However it is not ethical to ask them to do jobs in private enterprise that the unemployed could do for wages. Instead they should do things that local government would otherwise have to pay for to save the taxpayers money and things which noone is currently doing which could improve our societies' ability to provide jobs and boost prosperity. As a literal example, they could prepare a local market place by helping to erect stalls and cleaning away litter to create a conducive atmosphere for commerce. They could (as I did once) clear local footpaths and bridleways to assist travel by foot and bike for all purposes. They could reclaim fly tipped ponds and streams and areas of natural beauty to mitigate the costs of environmental degradation. There is plenty to do and they should do it but their capability wrt disability and illness should be assessed fairly so that the truely vulnerable are protected and currently that is not what is happening, people with terminal illness and paraplegia have been declared fit for work and threatened with withdrawal of benefits if they cant. Assessors have provenly fabricated reasons for disqualifying people. IMHO it is quite insane.

As a matter of interest for this topic and following on from the point I made about incentive and motivation in my first post, the same author at The Guardian has recently published a story on Tescos misgivings about government plans for a compulsory work experience scheme.

A fine example of the way in which financial ethics and human considerations were totally ignored in devising unemployment policy and are now being recognised as essential to making such schemes viable. Little quote below but there is more in the article.

Companies have no obligation to have a job on offer before they enrol the unemployed on a placement. According to the latest figures 34,000 people were put through the scheme between January and November last year.

If jobseekers pull out of a placement after the first week they face having their benefits withdrawn.

In a statement from Tesco on Friday night, the company – which made £3.8bn in profits last year – said it wanted the scheme to be free from any sort of sanction.

"We understand the concern that those who stay in the scheme longer than a week risk losing their benefits if they drop out before the end of their placement," Tesco said. "We have suggested to DWP that to avoid any misunderstanding about the voluntary nature of the scheme, this threat of losing benefit should be removed."

[Carl]

Fat Bloke, your numbers are meaningless without somthing to compare them with and a look at all other surrounding data.

Also, you've allready had an actual HR person tell you this sort of work is of no benefit unless your going for more of the same, so thats a huge reason to suspect things aren't as they appear.

@Manta: This is nothing new, they did the same with the old new deal scheme. Hire an employee for a year on a full time contract. The goverment then paid half the employee's wages for the first 6 months. (about £3,000 on a national minimum wage job @ 40 hours). Then when the contract expired force them out somehow, (cutting their working hours to nothing was the norm). This is one of the things that i hate about goverment jobs statistics. It's tottally irellevent how many people get a job. It's how many get a job and still have it 2 years later, thats a genuione meashure of the number of people who have found long term work and are not likliy to end up back on the jobless list. When i was unemployed, (For a fair stretch i'll admit), i saw this all the time, people would go get jobs, then 6-8 months later they'd be back, most whre examples i talked to that just told me, but a few i actually saw go leave to get a job, then come back to find another after that went wahooney shaped.

[Fat_Bloke]

@Mantaray I honestly don't remember what the paper was called but the PM announced the figures last week.

@boolybooly I spent the best part of a year of my degree covering lobby groups and the like, the content of both of your posts, as well as use of phrases such as "conforming innocent" and your general tone, tell me you are putting forward the kind of conpiritorial mumbo jumbo that obscures the real problems that exist in the lobbying industry. Also, The Guardian is the Daily Mail of the left and should be treated as such.

@Carl My numbers are, indeed, meaningless without context, I am just throwing out that particular piece of data to see how people react to it. Also, I have had an actual HR person tell me their opinion, labour force survey data and the recruitment policy of every major business I have come into contact with disagree with that opinion.