Very cool, if true

Not at all - but then that was the point, there weren't any jobs available in the local area doing what I wanted, so they were trying to find me a different job.

From:

hawkida.livejournal.com

But what kind of things did they give you?

I think part of the concern is around the idea of people doing degrading work - the sort of stuff you hear of being given to prisoners on day release, and also very obvious and visible within the community. For people feeling crap about not finding work, putting them on display so people around them can see they don't have real jobs may not be a sensible move. Mind, I don't know how much of what I'm hearing is scaremongering and whether that is the actual community work that will be made available.

From:

octopoid-horror.livejournal.com

If some people think they are "too good" for certain kinds of work, I'd say that they deserve to do jobs that they don't want to. None of the kinds of job people might get "forced" into are objectively degrading. People work for councils and apply for those kind of jobs. They just want more people doing them. Hell, when I finished university, I spent a year unemployed because I didn't want to take a minimum wage job in a fast food place or whatever, and couldn't find anything else. With hindsight, I was just being a snooty twat and there was no reason not to do so, other than my own personal prejudices. There's nothing wrong with doing a job that isn't what you're wanting to do if you can't find anything else.

People from a church nearby to where I live go out and do that kind of thing sometimes. I don't imagine that all of them find it degrading.

And if you see someone who is ostensibly working for the council planting trees or picking up litter, how will you know if they are a genuine council employee or someone who is long-term unemployed unless they make them wear special clothes (which I think would be an odd thing to do)

From:

robhu.livejournal.com

One of the repeated criticisms I saw of the Tory government on LJ before this happened was the fear that they'd expect unemployed LJers like them to do degrading work rather than be on the dole. The example that was repeatedly given of degrading work was working at Tescos.

From:

a-pawson.livejournal.com

As I understand it, you are given 6 months in which you can look for work in your particular field. After 6 months, you are expected to apply for any kind of work and can no longer look only at a certain type of job.

From:

I think the issue is that any measure that is seen as being 'tough' on the unemployed is all very well when there are going to be jobs for those unemployed people. But telling someone that they'll have their benefits cut if they "won't" find work isn't much use when there isn't any. The thing that none of the current measures being introduced by the coalition promise to do is create jobs - indeed, there are going to be even fewer jobs than before. Any individual measure being introduced - for the most part - isn't in and of itself ebil but this stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Ultimately it's all part of a bigger problem, but Labour don't actually trust their electorate to "get" that so they're just picking away at every little thing and making themselves look like reactionary tossers as usual.

From:

Especially as this was a Labour policy:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/forced-to-work-without-paylabour-got-there-first-says-ft-21986.html

From:

Oh, and I'm totally against benefits being cut after a given period. That's just punishment, it doesn't actually help anyone.

From:

I'm not aware of the specific policy you're speaking about as the last thing I read about was the Housing Benefit business, which is altogether a rather murky one to work through so it looks like folk just haven't tried.

From:

The thing that none of the current measures being introduced by the coalition promise to do is create jobs

This is not true. A number of measures in the emergency budget, for example, are expressly designed to increase employment, such as raising the National Insurance threshold, exemption from NI contributions for new businesses, and extension of the Enterprise Finance Guarantee.

indeed, there are going to be even fewer jobs than before

The OBR employment forecast for the whole economy predicts that employment will increase every year from 2010/11 (28.89 million) to 2015/16 (30.23 million).

From:

The OBR employment forecast for the whole economy predicts that employment will increase every year from 2010/11 (28.89 million) to 2015/16 (30.23 million).

Is that actually a real terms % improvement given projected population growth? I make it almost exact flatline in terms of % of the population.

When I said 'current' measures I was personally talking about the stuff in the last week or so - as I said above in my comment. As to the various more theoretically progressive incentives that are being introduced I'm less negative than some fellow frothing socialists regarding the emergency budget itself, but I'm skeptical that they'll go more than a tiny distance toward offsetting the damage done by other measures. However there's really little more I can say on that that isn't already readily available from other sources, better explained and referenced than I would.

From:

Is that actually a real terms % improvement given projected population growth? I make it almost exact flatline in terms of % of the population.

That's a good point. The OBR publications that I can find don't make it easy to tease out an answer. The labour participation rate is forecast to fall slightly, from 63.0% in 2010 to 62.3% in 2016. However, this rate refers to all persons aged 16 or over, when you really want the rate for people between 16 and the state retirement age: with our ageing population, you would expect labour participation to fall simply through a greater percentage being retired.

The best indication is probably the projections for the unemployment rate. This is forecast to fall from 8.0% in 2010 to 5.8% in 2016. This would suggest that the proportion (and absolute number) of working-age people in employment will rise steadily over the next few years.

These projections might be wrong, of course, but that's a whole other argument.

From:

nojay.livejournal.com

I'm currently unemployed, and long-term unemployed at that (being over 50 means I could well be looooong-term unemployed).

If they're promising me 30 hours a week work at minimum-wage painting park benches I'd grab it with both hands as that's £178.00 a week, a lot better than the £63.50 a week JSA I'm currently receiving. I'd lose a chunk of Housing Benefit but I'd more than make up for it with the extra dosh.

If they intend (as the "put the slackers to work" sound bite carefully doesn't mention) to make me work for thirty hours and only give me the current amount of the weekly JSA then that's another matter and I suspect it would fall foul of European laws on work and remuneration (and possibly Wilberforce's laws against slavery).

There are also the costs of the supervisors to monitor and track the people doing this work, materials like paint and brushes, protective clothing, training for health and safety before being deployed to carry out this work etc. Given the big cutbacks in local council staffing and funding being promised over the next few years I can't see this proposal actually getting off the ground unless a lot more money is forthcoming from the central government piggybank to pay for it and that seems unlikely.

From:

If they're promising me 30 hours a week work at minimum-wage painting park benches I'd grab it with both hands as that's £178.00 a week, a lot better than the £63.50 a week JSA I'm currently receiving. I'd lose a chunk of Housing Benefit but I'd more than make up for it with the extra dosh.

If they intend (as the "put the slackers to work" sound bite carefully doesn't mention) to make me work for thirty hours and only give me the current amount of the weekly JSA then that's another matter and I suspect it would fall foul of European laws on work and remuneration (and possibly Wilberforce's laws against slavery).

This is my concern exactly.

From:

If the work needs to be done, then pay an appropriate wage, create a job, and invite people to apply. Select the most suitable and employ them.

I also want to say that Lib Dems have quickly degraded from 'we have to co-operate in a coalition, and vote for things we don't like' - which I argue against but it has some moral integrity - to the apologia for workfare we have seen this weekend, which we see in this very thread.

Edited Date: 2010-11-07 11:36 pm (UTC)

From:

Are there any major parties against workfare? I assume the greens are, but I can't think of anyone else.

From:

I do not think that the Labour Party are supporting this policy. But - and this is a key difference between me and the Lib Dems - if Labour are supporting this policy, then I disagree with them, and will continue to argue against it.

From:

You and which Lib Dems? I've heard people that voted Lib Dem arguing against this?

Oh, and this is, as mentioned above, something that Labour actually brought in:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/forced-to-work-without-paylabour-got-there-first-says-ft-21986.html
and not significantly different from The New Deal that's existed for a fair while, where claimants have to do three months work experience after they've been unemployed for six months:
http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/2227714.html?thread=15698690#t15698690

From:

Oh, and I generally agree with you about jobs - I've been thinking about this recently, and about whether the government should be the employer of last resort. If there are unemployed people then create jobs doing useful things, and pay (at least) minimum wage for them. Which would also have the bonus of reducing the complexity of job seekers benefits, housing benefits, etc.

Must post about that tomorrow so I can be shot down in flames for it.

From:

Furthermore - I am just going to bed - but you were a privileged person when you did unpaid work placement. Imagine working all week outdoors in the winter and not earning enough to buy a waterproof coat and shoes. Not having enough money to heat up water for a bath when you get home. Not being able to have the central heating on. Think of all the things you spend money on to manage your life so you can work.

From:

heh...

I ignore the fact that I have heating because I don't want to use it. Ever. That means living mostly in one room with doors closed and wearing the warmest clothes I have handy. Almost everything I eat goes in a George Foreman grill because - other than it being wonderfully convenient - I'm convinced it's cheaper than the conventional cooker.

I'm hoping I can afford waterproof stuff to see me through this winter, as the stuff I currently own is mostly 2-3 years old.

I live on the smallest amount of money I can possibly get away with, and have never been more content.

From:

This is your serious argument for making people work all week for £50?

From:

Blimey, no!

It isn't actually an argument at all, just a personal statement. A bit of background is required....

My last job, I worked up to 75 hours a week, but because of various moneys I had stripped off by our last govt. I went home with about [on a very good week] £300. On a bad week I had £165. That mostly sucked, was utterly exhausting and unsustainable. Eventually my life fell apart and I became homeless in February.
I had the usual jobcentre interviews and whatnot, ended up in a homeless hostel. Fortunately the JC folks were canny enough to appreciate that if I worked I'd have to pay rent for the hostel at £35 a night - and as such 99% of the jobs they could offer wouldn't earn enough to break even. So I told them the truth: the instant I had my own place I'd go self-employed. They accepted that, turned a blind eye as I handed them page after page of rejections [most of which were actually real. I found that I didn't have to fake rejections, they happen just fine all by themselves].

I'm now a full-time student. I work weekends earning whatever I earn. But I'm so god damned terrified of living above my means that I spend *not a single penny* that I don't absolutely have to. Now, because I have the one thing I've desperately wanted my whole life - ie, my own flat - nothing much else matters.

But that's because I hit bottom. Life got so unbearably shit I had a simple choice of sorting it all out Right Fucking Now, or dying. And I do not want to die.
So, if I allowed myself to think about it I'd hate the fact that I'm afraid to turn the heating on. So I pretend I don't have any. I strip away layers of concern so I have less to worry about.

and because of that I've never been happier.

and no, I'm not remotely happy about Dave 'arsing genius' Camerons plan to limit social housing terms to 5 years. Because that means I face the utter hell of February all over again just when life should be working out.

further note: while I firmly believe I could [and probably do] live on £50, I do not ever want to be forced with that option again.

From:

I am sorry. I completely misunderstood what you were saying. You sound very courageous, and I admire it. Good luck with it.

From:

Not at all, Sir. Your initial response was entirely reasonable, though I thank you for your kind words.
I have a terrible habit of saying what I think I mean, rather than what I actually mean.

From:

The unpaid work placement scheme is designed to do two things: one explicitly, one surreptitiously. And neither of them has anything to do with getting necessary jobs done.

The openly stated goal is to give unemployed people some work skills training, in effect: to get them used to the idea of turning up at a particular place at a particular time and doing some job with reasonable diligence. Of course, many unemployed people have plenty of experience of being employed, and so hardly need this measure. The proposals do seem to recognise this, in that these placements are supposed to be for people who have turned down other kinds of assistance, are are therefore presumed to be the terminally workshy. I mainly see this simply adding more twists to the byzantine bureaucracy of claiming benefits, to no particular benefit, but you can see how some people might think it a good idea.

The concealed goal is to smoke out people who are claiming jobseeker's allowance while working cash in hand. Obviously, having to do a four week placement will put the kibosh on whatever undeclared job the claimant is already doing - unless they stop claiming, thus removing themselves from the unemployment figures.

It's a sneaky trick, and you can see why it would be attractive to ministers and officials. This is no doubt why it has enjoyed such cross-party support - as you note above, it was a Labour policy before the coalition took it up.

Whatever the goal, at no stage is this policy about identifying work that needs to be done and then attempting to recruit staff to do it. It's about getting people to dig holes and fill them in again in order to achieve some other aim.

From:

cairmen.livejournal.com

There's also the reasonably explicit punitive aims (see the FT piece) - "if you don't look like you're trying hard to get a job, you get stuck in shitty workfare".

From:

channelpenguin.livejournal.com

THIS!

From:

On your original question, there's an interesting discussion on the Bad Science forums here, starting from this comment:

I don't understand how this is much different from the existing New Deal program. Long term unemployed in this case probably means 6 months, which is what it means now anyway.
After being on JSA for six months you are then put on the New Deal and get extra support and are expected to get a volunteer job for 3 months during this period. Extra help and reduced hours are allowed for people with minor illness that stop them working certain amounts of hours.

Having been through it myself what happens is that you work for 4 days a week and on the fifth day you go to a job search center (you do this even when you haven't a job and are expected to go more often if you don't) and spent 8 hours applying for jobs, updating CV etc. I didn't find this horrible, the support was very good, you were able to reclaim travel expenses, you get a £15 bump in JSA :roll: and so forth, the support was there but sadly the jobs were not and no amount of effort can get you a job that isn't there. People were volunteering in charities like the Citizens Advice Bureau (including me), others in retail work for large chain stores (free workers for them who aren't covered by job contracts) or where ever they could find it. It didn't feel like the slave labour people are claiming it will be, some people were obviously against it and they just seemed like the ones who don't want to work, most enjoyed it and actually wanted to work the fifth day rather than job searching. The biggest problem with it, no jobs once it's over, it's a massive comedown and most people know the work they are doing is fruitless with a slim chance of a job at end, but what can you do? stop and lose all benefits for three months is the alternative already. Also if you take more than 5 days sick in the 3 months of work you get "fired" from the job by the job center and kicked off new deal and jsa for three months.

Anyway, like i said, this thing from IDS actually seems less forceful than the existing new deal which makes you do 3 months of work with much harsher limits and always has the threat of "we'll cut your benefits if you don't dance monkey boy" mantra around it.

Same shit, different government.

From:

lilysea.livejournal.com

What I'm concerned about is what the provisions are for people with conditions such as

Arthritis;
Сhronic fatigue syndrome (CFS);
Fibromyalgia;
Repetitive strain injury (RSI) etc etc.

to avoid doing unpaid work placements where the type of work involved might aggravate their physical issues, thus making it even harder for them to find paid work.

From:

Yup, I'd be against that.

From:

a-pawson.livejournal.com

Surely there will be exceptions made for people with disabilities or medical problems?

From: