Work for Benefits

[trousers]

Job creation, affordable housing, re-prioritisation of funding, renegotiation with banks and central bankers.

 

 

So, under Prime Minister pap we have zero unemployment and instant re-employment for someone who loses their job? Sounds good to me. Where do I put my X ?

[pap]

So, under Prime Minister pap we have zero unemployment and instant re-employment for someone who loses their job? Sounds good to me. Where do I put my X ?

 

Well, at least you're now thinking outside of the box.

 

However, a robust policy platform for my presumed Prime Ministerial career isn't really required here. I could simply rely on a Tory virtue and have done with it. Work should pay. This particular example is completely unacceptable. The guy was let go on minimum wage by the company, then forced to work for the same company to get benefits that he wouldn't have needed if he wasn't let go. It clearly demonstrates how the policy is removing paid work from the economy. The "beauty" of this case is that it happens to the same bloke, so the causality is all the more apparent.

 

This is all against the backdrop of HMRC forgiving large corporations billions in tax, which I'd guess would be pretty handy for paying benefits when companies make indifferent decisions about how many people they'll employ here.

 

There are times to be a tub-thumping apologist for your favourite political football team. This isn't one of them.

[trousers]

I thought I was the king of whataboutery?

[ecuk268]

The alternative, once the 'charity' involved has stopped hanging its had in shame, is to pay the guy. This amounts to bonded labour.

 

This is just an extreme case of the familiar dodge by the worst employers - shift the costs of labour (with low pay or no pay) from the employer to the tax payer.

 

Employers like this are the worst of state benefits spongers. I thought you'd be against such a thing.

 

It's also illegal to take someone on work placement to replace a previously paid post.

[trousers]

The alternative, once the 'charity' involved has stopped hanging its had in shame, is to pay the guy.

 

Doesn't that assume the company/charity in question is able to sustain or increase it's work force levels (on full pay) without operating at a loss?

Edited 4 November, 2014 by trousers

[Gemmel]

The story isn't as quite as sensationalist as it might first appear.

 

This bloke never worked their full time. He was doing a "temporary job" (Could have been a couple of days / couple of weeks??) back in 2011. So its not like one week he was being paid and the next week he has to do the same job just for benefits.

 

Additionally;

LAMH confirmed it has 16 people working for six months without pay under CWP but added that since the end of June, six had progressed into paid employment

 

That's not bad odds, I would imagine that many of the people who have been long term unemployed, would consider giving that a shot.

 

All of these schemes have their drawbacks and I'm not blindly defending this one, but the above stat suggests it is working to an extent.

[Verbal]

Doesn't that assume the company/charity in question is able to sustain or increase it's work force levels without operating at a loss?

 

What kind of Tory are you? So you're saying that if a company can't afford to pay its workforce it can just tap up the state and get its workers for free? Shaft the employee and the taxpayer at the same time?

 

I can only assume you think this couldn't happen to you. But just suppose for a minute that your nice cosy ride on your plastic-seated First Capital Connect was suddenly impossible because your employer had told you you're redundant - and then said you can come back to work for free. How would you feel? Would it change your life at all?

[trousers]

So you're saying that if a company can't afford to pay its workforce it can just tap up the state and get its workers for free?

 

I work for a small company (head count = 10). More often than not, when our workloads increase there isn't a linear increment in our profit margins because the additional workload can often arise as a result of squeezing our profit margins. We would love to employ more people when the workloads rise if we could but often we can't. However, if the government was steering people on benefits our way whilst they were looking for a full paid job at a company that can sustain them, then of course we would consider taking them on board for a mutually beneficial period of time. The job seeker gets to sustain or top up his skills, thus sustaining or increasing his marketability, and we get some help with our workload peaks without making our business non-viable.

 

I'm sure there are unscrupulous companies out there who try to exploit the situation but that doesn't mean that the scheme is wrong per se.

 

Just an alternative opinion of course, which I know is dangerous territory in social media land.

[Minty]

Some would say that your business is already non-viable if it can't cope or adapt to peaks in demand without extra unpaid labour.

 

I recognise the problem because I have dealt with it in many roles, and it's not easy to overcome, however IF we are to allow businesses to make use of unemployed people in a way such as this, then the business should, IMO, commit to paying for that labour at a point in the future when it gains the income for the work that they have done.

 

That's a whole other discussion though.

[saintbletch]

What's the alternative? Sitting at home watching daytime TV?

 

Serious questions, and I promise not to judge you by your answer - well perhaps a little bit, but when you read comrade pap's posts, what emotion did you feel toward the man in article?

 

Doesn't that assume the company/charity in question is able to sustain or increase it's work force levels (on full pay) without operating at a loss?

 

Surely the crazed dogs of capitalism come in the night to take down and devour the carcases of the slow and weak?

 

It just goes out of business, doesn't it?

 

I'm not sure that it's completely on to have Marie Antoinette's cake and eat it.

[trousers]

Some would say that your business is already non-viable if it can't cope or adapt to peaks in demand without extra unpaid labour.

 

I didn't say that the current headcount can't cope with fluctuations in workloads.

 

I didn't have time to rake up the leaves in the back garden over the weekend but if the government sent someone around to do it why would I turn them away?

Edited 4 November, 2014 by trousers

[trousers]

Serious questions, and I promise not to judge you by your answer - well perhaps a little bit, but when you read comrade pap's posts, what emotion did you feel toward the man in article?

 

I felt sadness that he didn't have a full time job.

[Minty]

I didn't say that the current headcount can't cope with fluctuations in workloads.

 

Apologies, however I'm sure you can see that your post...

 

we get some help with our workload peaks without making our business non-viable.

 

... suggested to me that other alternatives for coping with the workload peaks *would* make the business non-viable.

[Halo Stickman]

Whilst I’ve no doubt there are unscrupulous companies and organisations taking advantage of the work-for-benefits or ‘made to volunteer’ scheme, my own first-hand observations have persuaded me that this scheme can be of value in certain circumstances.

 

For several years, being semi-retired, I’ve spent some of my spare time doing practical conservation work on a voluntary basis for various countryside trusts, and, during this time, I’ve worked alongside several people who have been ‘made to volunteer’ in order to claim their benefits.

 

Of course, I acknowledge there is a vast difference between volunteering by choice and being ‘made to volunteer’; nevertheless, almost without exception, the people I’ve witnessed being ‘made to volunteer’ very quickly replace any initial sullen reluctance with an enthusiastic approach to the work.

 

Now, having spent several periods out of work, myself, over the years, I know how debilitating and undermining the isolation of redundancy can be. Learning new skills, interacting with other people and the environment, physical and mental stimulation etc can lead to increased self-confidence, self-worth and self-esteem, all of which increases the chances of someone gaining paid employment, and, happily, this has been the case with the ‘forced volunteers’ I’ve worked alongside.

 

Therefore, I believe there is a role for ‘forced volunteering’, albeit a limited one. But, in a fair and just world, there’s certainly not a role for the kind of forced labour conducted by some companies and organisations and, seemingly, endorsed by some sections of society. It goes without saying that in an ideal world no one would have to work for nothing, unless they chose to do so.

[trousers]

Apologies, however I'm sure you can see that your post...

we get some help with our workload peaks without making our business non-viable.

... suggested to me that other alternatives for coping with the workload peaks *would* make the business non-viable.

Sorry, probably my poor wording....employing extra people when our profit margins are being squeezed would often be non-viable.....working extra hours without being paid overtime (for example) would be a viable option. Edited 4 November, 2014 by trousers

[saintbletch]

I felt sadness that he didn't have a full time job.

 

That's surely not the right answer, but I'm glad to hear it.

 

I was just surprised at how quickly pragmatism overcame your sadness to suggest...

 

What's the alternative? Sitting at home watching daytime TV?

 

Perhaps you've read more about him than I?

 

Perhaps you know that he isn't actively looking for work, but is instead happy to stay at home and watch daytime TV?

 

If so, then I can understand your comment.

 

If not, then you might look like you were dismissing the sad situation a fellow human being finds himself in, just so you could trot out a popular pejorative.

[trousers]

I felt sadness that he didn't have a full time job.

 

That's surely not the right answer, but I'm glad to hear it.

 

I was just surprised at how quickly pragmatism overcame your sadness to suggest...

 

What's the alternative? Sitting at home watching daytime TV?

 

 

Perhaps you've read more about him than I?

 

Perhaps you know that he isn't actively looking for work, but is instead happy to stay at home and watch daytime TV?

 

If so, then I can understand your comment.

 

If not, then you might look like you were dismissing the sad situation a fellow human being finds himself in, just so you could trot out a popular pejorative.

 

No, I would feel even sadder if he was sat at home watching television whilst waiting to secure a full time job. If I was unemployed and looking for another job, I'd much rather my days in-between jobs were used used productively rather than sitting around twiddling my thumbs. That's got nothing to do with compassion or the lack of. That's just common sense in my humble opinion. I'm not looking to cast judgement on this one individual, or others in his position.

Edited 4 November, 2014 by trousers

[buctootim]

No, I would feel even sadder if he was sat at home watching television whilst waiting to secure a full time job.

 

A scheme that incentivises employers to sack their paid staff and replace them with people paid by the taxpayer is going to make that more likely, not less.

Edited 4 November, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

No, I would feel even sadder if he was sat at home watching television whilst waiting to secure a full time job. If I was unemployed and looking for another job, I'd much rather my days in-between jobs were used used productively rather than sitting around twiddling my thumbs. That's got nothing to do with compassion or the lack of. That's just common sense in my humble opinion. I'm not looking to cast judgement on this one individual, or others in his position.

 

So if you're working for free, during normal work hours, how exactly do you find yourself paid work?

 

You reckon prospective employers would open their doors on a weekend to interview someone else's slave?

[trousers]

"Mum. Help. They're ganging up on me."

 

"Well, I did tell you to stick to posting drivel on the Pompey takeover thread, didn't I my cherub?"

[Halo Stickman]

"Mum. Help. They're ganging up on me."

 

Yeah, pack it in fellas – it can’t be nice for a mother to have her trousers ripped to shreds by a gang of mouthy blokes.

[saintbletch]

No, I would feel even sadder if he was sat at home watching television whilst waiting to secure a full time job. If I was unemployed and looking for another job, I'd much rather my days in-between jobs were used used productively rather than sitting around twiddling my thumbs. That's got nothing to do with compassion or the lack of. That's just common sense in my humble opinion. I'm not looking to cast judgement on this one individual, or others in his position.

 

Thanks for taking the time to express your opinions in a bit more detail, trousers. It's so much better than reading glib and provocative posts on what are complex and sensitive issues.

 

I stopped posting in here a while back simply because I see so much grey where others see white or black, and it therefore takes me a long time to properly articulate my thoughts. I've been reading a lot of political theory in recent months, and so I've been drawn back in...

 

I also follow your logic, and feel that I would be in the same boat regarding wanting to do something of value. I volunteer to help teachers and kids learn how to code with my spare time, and I'm finding my choice very rewarding.

 

However, as verbal mentioned below, I struggle to see how you, as someone who I don't think would mind being described as a pragmatist on the right of the political spectrum, cannot see that the impact of such a policy is economic intervention in the employment market with indirect financial support for business.

 

In the case of the bloke in pap's article, this doesn't appear to be the sort of intervention that is designed to fix a broken market (quantitative easing, etc.), but instead it looks like intervention to help a broken company to limp on when market forces would otherwise dictate its death. And when the bloke uses the only leverage he has to point out this ugly contradiction - the withdrawal of his labour, he is sanctioned.

 

Such a policy must also surely alter the dynamic* in the job market for minimum wage workers? Work effort, supplied by the state without cost, can now be turned directly into profit by the company without any obligation to use that increased profit to provide real, paid, full-time employment. That just sounds wrong, to me.

 

Apart from an increased corporation tax yield, that profit finds its way into the pockets of the owners of the business; be they individuals, shareholders, etc.

 

So that's government money, ultimately being paid to (presumably) already relatively wealthy people, whilst at the same time ensuring that there are fewer paid jobs in the market. That just sounds wrong to me.

 

I'd likely support such a system that was a proven conveyor belt for taking those that had found themselves out of work for some time, through this sort of scheme and into the bountiful lands of full-time employment, whilst at the same time ensuring that those businesses that had been suckling at the government profit-nipple, were weaned off.

 

But that is not the case here.

 

*I'd acknowledge that I don't know how much impact this policy is having on the job market.

**I'm assuming that the bloke in the article is otherwise genuinely looking for work, and is protesting on a point of principle.

 

"Mum. Help. They're ganging up on me."

 

"Well, I did tell you to stick to posting drivel on the Pompey takeover thread, didn't I my cherub?"

 

You can be sure that when verbal and pap join forces (pap and verbal sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G...), then you're on the wrong side of some supreme, elemental force. My advice would be to back down.

 

But I'm not sure that your Mum is right, trousers.

 

I do think posting in here requires that you've got to spend the time to flesh out your nuanced, multi-layered and sometimes contradictory thoughts on a subject, or you risk being christened the nasty poster.

[pap]

Excellent post, bletch - and I don't want to re-tread the ground you've so eloquently covered, but the effects of this policy were predicted and felt from the start. First, I think the problem that this is intended to solve, that of the feckless unemployed, is hugely overstated and perhaps incorrectly framed. A far bigger problem is being trapped in unemployment, something which is a far larger problem, especially among the lone parent community. It's effectively the choice between looking after your kids full time or going out to work, and making all the arrangements for their care and transport, often for no greater financial renumeration than what they would have got anyway.

 

Now I'm all for the world of work. I've hated being unemployed on the few occasions it happened, and I've seen ms pap transform in the last few years due to her re-entry in full-time employment. The chap in the article wants to work, but he's rightfully miffed at having to do it for free, especially as it'll nix his already limited job opportunities. That's the real problem, btw - globalisation has seen us use Russia as our heater, China as our factory, India as our call centre operatives and our unskilled job market is open to the whole of the EU. All of these factors limit opportunities for the British jobseeker. Punishing someone for being unemployed in Britain of 2014 seems tantamount to punishing someone for starving during a famine.