1 minute ago, royal white said:

It’s a reward for their community work. Others do community work for free. if they dont do it they they lose their £400 a month

I do think there's an argument with unemployment that it's catastrophically bad for some people's mental health.

I wouldn't want something like this to be seen as a punishment - but to get people energised and kick started again. With some self worth.

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

I do think there's an argument with unemployment that it's catastrophically bad for some people's mental health.

I wouldn't want something like this to be seen as a punishment - but to get people energised and kick started again. With some self worth.

💯 more of a “right mate you’ve had a year off now, let’s get you back at it, you can’t keep getting money for nothing”

I like the idea. In principal

However, it poses a question. They're expected to work for £98 per week or whatever.. Which is way below minimum wage. So if they were to do that work, should the government not pay them the national minimum wage?

If the work is there, why are people/councils/businesses not employing for it? Could it be that the jobs don't exist in the employment sphere? If so, do we stop saying that people should find a job cleaning bogs, or emptying bins instead of having a go at folk for claiming benefits (without knowing their personal circumstances)

Or should they get £400 a month for watching loose women?

This is from AI

Here’s where it gets interesting. Current minimum-wage rules specifically exclude “workers on a government employment programme” from entitlement to the National Minimum Wage. Genuine voluntary workers can also fall outside minimum-wage legislation.

7 minutes ago, royal white said:

Or should they get £400 a month for watching loose women?

This is from AI

Here’s where it gets interesting. Current minimum-wage rules specifically exclude “workers on a government employment programme” from entitlement to the National Minimum Wage. Genuine voluntary workers can also fall outside minimum-wage legislation.

I get it.. But if the work exists, why is it not an advertised 'job' paying a salary?

6 minutes ago, royal white said:

Or should they get £400 a month for watching loose women?

This is from AI

Here’s where it gets interesting. Current minimum-wage rules specifically exclude “workers on a government employment programme” from entitlement to the National Minimum Wage. Genuine voluntary workers can also fall outside minimum-wage legislation.

Fuck me, I'd rather clean bogs for 98 quid a week than watch daytime telly! 🤣

3 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

I get it.. But if the work exists, why is it not an advertised 'job' paying a salary?

Let's say it's picking litter

Normally that would be the job of the Council, but Council's are skint and probably can't afford to have as many as they would like

Especially if someone on benefits does it rather than them paying for it

Just now, boltonboris said:

I get it.. But if the work exists, why is it not an advertised 'job' paying a salary?

6 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Let's say it's picking litter

Normally that would be the job of the Council, but Council's are skint and probably can't afford to have as many as they would like

Especially if someone on benefits does it rather than them paying for it

Again, if that work needs doing, it should be a job. We shouldn't be paying somebody £98 per week to do it, but hiding it behind a community service like they're criminals. Fair pay for fair work

If the council can't afford to pay them minimum wage, then the government should. In that case, it's not in the councils interest, or the government's interest to get these people into full-time employment and the claimant can't get a job, because such roles are being taken up by these schemes

8 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Let's say it's picking litter

Normally that would be the job of the Council, but Council's are skint and probably can't afford to have as many as they would like

Especially if someone on benefits does it rather than them paying for it

So how is community service done then if there’s already jobs out there? Folk work in charity shops for free, libraries etc. councils regularly say they’re under manned and under funded, they would surely help?

They're not criminals

4 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

Again, if that work needs doing, it should be a job. We shouldn't be paying somebody £98 per week to do it, but hiding it behind a community service like they're criminals. Fair pay for fair work

If the council can't afford to pay them minimum wage, then the government should. In that case, it's not in the councils interest, or the government's interest to get these people into full-time employment and the claimant can't get a job, because such roles are being taken up by these schemes

If I’ve been taking the piss for 12 months and then suddenly told I need to go and do some community work to keep my money I’d be doing one of 2 things. Saying I don’t need the money and carry on without (I doubt many could afford to do that though) or apply for that warehouse job that I thought I was to good for and go and earn a honest living instead of being a bum.

So how is community service done then if there’s already jobs out there? Folk work in charity shops for free, libraries etc. councils regularly say they’re under manned and under funded, they would surely help?

I think you've misunderstood my point

I'm saying a Council might like to have more litter pickers but can't afford it

So they are not going to look to employ someone to do it especially when the government can get somebody to do it for them

Edited August 18Aug 18 by DirtySanchez

2 hours ago, Sweep said:

I agree with you...however, if folk do lose their £400 per month, the Government isn't just going to let them starve to death.

Also, would there then be an upturn in crime, if they don't get their £400 per month

I'm sure Reform have it fully costed, and the detail will follow.

Send then to A

WORK HOUSE then

2 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

So how is community service done then if there’s already jobs out there? Folk work in charity shops for free, libraries etc. councils regularly say they’re under manned and under funded, they would surely help?

I think you've misunderstood my point

I'm saying a Council might like to have more litter pickers but can't afford it

So they are not going to look to employ someone to do it especially when the government can get somebody to do it for them

If they have say 10 litter pickers on the pay roll but need another 5 they then get them for free.

3 minutes ago, royal white said:

If I’ve been taking the piss for 12 months and then suddenly told I need to go and do some community work to keep my money I’d be doing one of 2 things. Saying I don’t need the money and carry on without (I doubt many could afford to do that though) or apply for that warehouse job that I thought I was to good for and go and earn a honest living instead of being a bum.

The fact that everyone claiming benefits is referred to as a "bum" and is "taking the piss" is exactly the dog whistling rhetoric that gets in the way of any serious debate, or solution to an actual issue

Just now, royal white said:

If they have say 10 litter pickers on the pay roll but need another 5 they then get them for free.

I know, that's the point I'm making

1 minute ago, royal white said:

If they have say 10 litter pickers on the pay roll but need another 5 they then get them for free.

But then all of a sudden the council only actually employ 5 litter pickers. And they'll be the supervise the 10 "free" ones.

I maintain that if there are jobs out there that need doing, the people doing them should be paid a fair wage for doing it and have full protected employment status

Basically, it's a soundbyte and a dog-whistle that has not been thought through but gets their target audience nodding in approval. It does nothing to solve the issue around benefits / unemployment and the actual logistics of it all

1 minute ago, boltonboris said:

Basically, it's a soundbyte and a dog-whistle that has not been thought through but gets their target audience nodding in approval. It does nothing to solve the issue around benefits / unemployment and the actual logistics of it all

It works perfectly fine in Australia and many European countries. Guess it was just a successful dog whistle.

6 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

I know, that's the point I'm making

So what’s the problem then?

8 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

The fact that everyone claiming benefits is referred to as a "bum" and is "taking the piss" is exactly the dog whistling rhetoric that gets in the way of any serious debate, or solution to an actual issue

No one is saying that about everyone claiming benefits.

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

So what’s the problem then?

I didn't say there was a problem

I was replying to the post that said if the work is out there it should be advertised as a job and paid minimum wage

That could potentially cost c£23k p/a

If there's a chance that someone could be paid by the govt to do it, then the person in charge of the coffers at the council is more likely to take that option I would have thought

4 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

I didn't say there was a problem

I was replying to the post that said if the work is out there it should be advertised as a job and paid minimum wage

That could potentially cost c£23k p/a

If there's a chance that someone could be paid by the govt to do it, then the person in charge of the coffers at the council is more likely to take that option I would have thought

But there’s no money in a lot of cases so this is the solution.

There was a similar scheme in 2011 but there was no uproar about it then. Weird that

14 minutes ago, royal white said:

But there’s no money in a lot of cases so this is the solution.

There was a similar scheme in 2011 but there was no uproar about it then. Weird that

What happened to the scheme back in 2011?

51 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

Again, if that work needs doing, it should be a job. We shouldn't be paying somebody £98 per week to do it, but hiding it behind a community service like they're criminals. Fair pay for fair work

If the council can't afford to pay them minimum wage, then the government should. In that case, it's not in the councils interest, or the government's interest to get these people into full-time employment and the claimant can't get a job, because such roles are being taken up by these schemes

I used to pick litter for the council amongst other things.

It shouldn't be a function, as folk shouldn't drop the stuff in the first place.

There is also the add on costs for disposal, transport etc (not just wages).

Supplementing that function with bad lads army types and long term feckless layabouts would free up those resources within the councils to do other things like improve parks and green spaces, or road maintenance.

The costs remain the same but more is achieved.