At least some people can be bothered...

[philipsteak]

So we come back to the issue of people being told... why bother.... just sit on the dole....

I feel sorry for anyone is trying to find work and can't... The only people I take issue is the ones who aren't prepared to try...

Edited July 28, 2010 by philipsteak

[jump]

What annoys me though is that these people don't want/expect more, I could of stayed on my lovely council estate content to never wonder off any where further than a 5 min walk but growing up I worked hard (I really, really worked my balls off between 18-21, far more than I do now in fairness) because I wanted my own place without the compromise of it the size of a shoe box with a door and so I could go out and drink in clubs in London instead of a bottle of cider in the bridge (I know people who are 20 something who do this on a Saturaday night), and go to the gig/festivals my friends from school were going to and just being able to afford things I want like an I-pod.

I do know people who have been on the dole for years and have tried to work but they just f**k up their jobs over and over again, they turn up late make mistakes etc. not because they are not trying but because they aren't capable so after a while they feel defeated and not try any more.

[dakyras]

A poor family in the South of America is considering a fifth child. This family, because of its skin color, already has difficulty receiving help and are already at the bare minimum poverty level. The outlook for their present children does not look bright.

By your reckoning they shouldn't have the child. By my reckoning, you've just ensured that Martin Luther King was never born.

[Nedson]

Might be worth watching last weeks World Strictest Parents... The 17 year old girl in it is a f**king classic example of the type of person you say you have never met.

[pink_triangle]

There are less jobs available than there are people who want to work. So all these people who aren't prepared to try suddenly see the error of their ways and decide they want to get a job. All you have are loads of extra people going after the same few jobs

[oafc0000]

You shouldnt watch things like this... Blood pressure etc

Also hope your childs tucked up safely in bed before you start hurling "sponging bastards!" at the tv for an hour

[RABun]

lol. I never swear outside of forums

[Nedson]

lol. I never swear outside of forums

[rabid]

How about a system where those on benefits (and able to work) had to do a certain amount of voluntary work a week. It would help future employment prospects and mean they were actually doing something that is useful to society.

[Steve P]

I'm starting to be convinced I'll be made redundant whilst on maternity leave, if not before. The joy of working in the public sector right now.

[sifi]

How about a system where those on benefits (and able to work) had to do a certain amount of voluntary work a week. It would help future employment prospects and mean they were actually doing something that is useful to society.

[pink_triangle]

How about employing them properly, and paying them a fair days money for a fair days work?

Edited July 28, 2010 by pink_triangle

[RABun]

This has recently happened to my other half, although she didn't work in the public sector. The company she worked for (a subsiduary of HSBC) was taken over by another company. It became increasingly obvious that they'd be making her redundant and they sodded her about for months. In the end they announced her redundancy 2 weeks before she was due back. They've given her a decent payoff but she's now stuck searching for a new job. As we've got our little one to think of too now, she can't just take the first thing that comes along. The job centre keep trying to get her to apply for things that just make sense. After childcare costs we'd be much worse off than if we didn't claim anything and she just stayed at home. She's now been told that theres some new clothing store opening up in town and that she'll have to apply for a job there and take it if offered, or lose her benefits. Again it'd cost us money rather than help us. I know why they are forcing these sort of things through, anything to get people off benefits, but having paid our taxes for years we both feel cheated.

[Steve P]

This is horrible - surely they can't take benefit away from someone with a small child.

Would you get tax credits to bump it up if she was to take it?

[eFestivals]

How about a system where those on benefits (and able to work) had to do a certain amount of voluntary work a week. It would help future employment prospects and mean they were actually doing something that is useful to society.

erm .... has your brain been switched off? If someone "had" to do something, then it cannot be "voluntary".

There used to be a system just like that in this country - it was known as "the workhouse". There's very good reason why workhouses no longer exist, and I much prefer living as things are now to this country reverting to Victorian attitudes.

[jump]

They'd happily take benefits away - welcome to austerity Britain. If you don't take a job offer then as far as they're concerned you no longer have to be paid benefits.

Yeah we'd get some tax credits, but the long and short of it is it'll cost us around £1000-1200 a month in childcare. It means she needs a salary of around £18k just to break even. It's nuts really how expensive childcare is and how much it stops people going back to work. Sadly in the long run we can't afford for her not to go back to work as I don't earn enough to pay all our bills and our savings won't last long enough.

[eFestivals]

She's now been told that theres some new clothing store opening up in town and that she'll have to apply for a job there and take it if offered, or lose her benefits. Again it'd cost us money rather than help us. I know why they are forcing these sort of things through, anything to get people off benefits, but having paid our taxes for years we both feel cheated.

why do you think that possible work options HAVE TO improve your financial situation?

While I understand that things would be financially worse if your missus worked, when was a law passed that means things only go forever upwards?

The starter of this thread would probably consider that your missus not wanting to work because of the financial implications would be cheating him. And given that there's nothing that says things must only get better, his sense of being cheated is probably on sounder moral ground than your own.

At the end of the day, all of these issues come down to the society we have created around us. It's all very well wanting the 'right' to achieve great things for you and yours if you're able to, but the flipside of that is the unequal society which leaves your missus in the financial position you're moaning about.

How many people join up the dots enough to recognise that one person's double-the-average-wage is another person without any wage at all? How you vote affects this; how you act affects this; how you think affects this.

If you don't like your missus being in the situation she's in, do you (not you personally, I mean any reader) follow thru on that thought to the extent of thinking "I'm paid too much, and the situation of my missus is the result - so it needs to change"?

Very few do.

[oafc0000]

I think the suggestion people should do community service / charity work after six months or something is a good one...

[Steve P]

why do you think that possible work options HAVE TO improve your financial situation?

While I understand that things would be financially worse if your missus worked, when was a law passed that means things only go forever upwards?

The starter of this thread would probably consider that your missus not wanting to work because of the financial implications would be cheating him. And given that there's nothing that says things must only get better, his sense of being cheated is probably on sounder moral ground than your own.

At the end of the day, all of these issues come down to the society we have created around us. It's all very well wanting the 'right' to achieve great things for you and yours if you're able to, but the flipside of that is the unequal society which leaves your missus in the financial position you're moaning about.

How many people join up the dots enough to recognise that one person's double-the-average-wage is another person without any wage at all? How you vote affects this; how you act affects this; how you think affects this.

If you don't like your missus being in the situation she's in, do you (not you personally, I mean any reader) follow thru on that thought to the extent of thinking "I'm paid too much, and the situation of my missus is the result - so it needs to change"?

Very few do.

[eFestivals]

I can't see many people opting to work full time, not see their kid properly during the week only to be worse off than if they stayed at home and didn't work at all or even claim benefits.

Nor can I.

But, for the likes of your missus, just expecting work to suddenly pay more is never going to happen. What any work pays is directly related to the valuation that society puts on everything - and so society is saying about the likes of your missus that her work ain't worth shit but her staying home ain't worth shit either, while other things are more highly valued.

Now, given that you and those who know her (and we all know others in similar situations too) very probably think she's worth more than shit, why is everyone allowing people like to be thought of as near-worthless for any work - or even child care - that she and others might do?

The reason is very simple: if she's valued more, then there's a trade-off. Someone else has to be valued less, and the likes of you and others that know your missus would as a majority rather their own value was sustained than the value of your missus' contributions to society were more highly valued.

Yes, it really does come down to such a simple scenario: greed. Greed by so many of those in work, not by the likes of your missus.

How can it be changed, so that the valuable contribution to society that your missus and others who aren't currently valued is properly recognised? By those people deciding that they should drop their greed in favour of the likes of her.

Will it ever happen? Not for all the while that people are prepared to vote c**ts like the tories in - because their base ideology is that the greedy should take it all, because the likes of your missus is too weak - and kept too weak - to stop them.

Meanwhile, you'll find that - for example - your in-laws will (say they) sympathise with her situation ... and then vote tory and ensure she continues to get shafted. Things will only change when people do.

[Steve P]

But, for the likes of your missus, just expecting work to suddenly pay more is never going to happen. What any work pays is directly related to the valuation that society puts on everything - and so society is saying about the likes of your missus that her work ain't worth shit but her staying home ain't worth shit either, while other things are more highly valued.

[pink_triangle]

erm .... has your brain been switched off? If someone "had" to do something, then it cannot be "voluntary".

There used to be a system just like that in this country - it was known as "the workhouse". There's very good reason why workhouses no longer exist, and I much prefer living as things are now to this country reverting to Victorian attitudes.

[eFestivals]

I agree, but sadly it isn't ever going to change.

and that attitude is exactly why it never will.

All the while that people accept being screwed over they'll continue to be screwed over.

[eFestivals]

Im not talking about forcing people to work for free but I think if people expect benefits that they should be willing to give something to society. Could be as simple as visiting someone in a resedential home with no family.

But if - using your example - visiting someone in a residential home with no family is considered a worthwhile thing for society as you post suggests that it is, then surely society should be properly employing someone to be doing just that, and not using what at the end of the day is little more than slave labour.

And of course, that would be one less person unemployed.

The problem with the "forced voluntary work" idea is that any task that is considered worthwhile for someone to do on that basis is a task that it must be worthwhile to employ someone to do - otherwise they'd simply be doing pointless tasks.

[pink_triangle]

I agree, but sadly it isn't ever going to change.

Now I fully understand that the government can't go on paying benefits forever while people go on looking for their ideal job, but I'm struggling to see why they aren't giving her more encouragement to get a job that would help generate more tax revenue.