• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Sort out the Dole Queue

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
What would be the first things you'd sort out with the dole

Mine are as follows

Job Seekers Allowance Claimants

Because there are a majority of people sitting at home who are fed up with being bored and unemployed i would have it made compulsory that each Job Seekers Allowance claimant, Employment Support Allowance Claimant would be mandated to attend a job search session at training providers of no more or less than 16 hours per week. Even if they began a new claim or had just transferred from a previous training course or signed on for the first time there would be no exceptions. This would allow them to look for work on a daily basis and prevent them from being bored. This will also boast peoples chances of finding work.

Not to say that everyone on JSA or ESA is a scrounger. This would also halt anyone thinking of scrounging on JSA ESA etc in the country from being able to sit on there backsides and do nothing.

Adding to this work placements would be made mandatory if anyone was unable to find work after 6 months on these courses. That way anyone claiming dole would be working to earn there benefit and could give something back to the tax payer. These placements would last 6 months as well further boasting someones chances of finding a suitable job.

Also the job centre plus main website could be changed to fully utilize the internet and with a network of millions of respectable job search websites out there could be used as a price comparison style website but this would look for work across many job search websites out there increasing the amount of jobs available by location hours etc..

All of this would tackle the unemployment problem and sort out the dole queues.
 
D

dovercat

Guest
What would be the first things you'd sort out with the dole

Mine are as follows

Job Seekers Allowance Claimants

Because there are a majority of people sitting at home who are fed up with being bored and unemployed i would have it made compulsory that each Job Seekers Allowance claimant, Employment Support Allowance Claimant would be mandated to attend a job search session at training providers of no more or less than 16 hours per week. Even if they began a new claim or had just transferred from a previous training course or signed on for the first time there would be no exceptions. This would allow them to look for work on a daily basis and prevent them from being bored. This will also boast peoples chances of finding work.

Not to say that everyone on JSA or ESA is a scrounger. This would also halt anyone thinking of scrounging on JSA ESA etc in the country from being able to sit on there backsides and do nothing.

Adding to this work placements would be made mandatory if anyone was unable to find work after 6 months on these courses. That way anyone claiming dole would be working to earn there benefit and could give something back to the tax payer. These placements would last 6 months as well further boasting someones chances of finding a suitable job.

Also the job centre plus main website could be changed to fully utilize the internet and with a network of millions of respectable job search websites out there could be used as a price comparison style website but this would look for work across many job search websites out there increasing the amount of jobs available by location hours etc..

All of this would tackle the unemployment problem and sort out the dole queues.

Can ESA be excluded.
As ESA is a benefit for people currently incapable of work.
They are suppose to have personalized action plans that might require them to do work related activities, that is activities designed to help them become capable of maybe being able to do work in the future. They are currently deemed incapable of work so actually apply for jobs or being sent on work placements would be a bit pointless in most cases.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IronGiant

Moderator
How much would it cost to supervise all these people for 16 hours a week?

Or is this also a job creation scheme, creating a vast network of supervisors? :D
 
D

dovercat

Guest
Claimant would be mandated to attend a job search session at training providers of no more or less than 16 hours per week.

Why no more, why can they not stay longer. Presumably there will be heating and hot drinks. Might be better than having to feed the gas, electric meter.

Do they have to bring pack lunches. Why not set it up so they have to stay so many hours to get a token. With the token getting them a free hot meal. You could have them take turns cooking the hot meals.

This would allow them to look for work on a daily basis and prevent them from being bored. This will also boast peoples chances of finding work.

Or make them bored to death, and sick of being patronized by stupid training providers. In time maybe utterly disheartened due to endless rejections.

I can see it decreasing fraud due to not being in two places at once and possibly increasing the numbers willing to do low paid short term agency work or part time work, especially if the training providers get performance related pay based on getting them off JSA.

Can they choose to do volunteer work for the community or charity instead. So they are giving something back to society but not being forced to partake in what they view as relentless act of futility that is destroying their self esteem. Maybe they could just apply for say two jobs a week and do the community or charity work, so they are still looking for work.

Not to say that everyone on JSA or ESA is a scrounger. This would also halt anyone thinking of scrounging on JSA ESA etc in the country from being able to sit on there backsides and do nothing.

I thought the problem in the UK at the moment was lack of job vacancies not lack of unemployed people willing to work and looking for a job. Treating people as scroungers does not generally halt people thinking they are scroungers. It also kind of means you do have to think many of them are scroungers otherwise you would not have to treat them that way.

Adding to this work placements would be made mandatory if anyone was unable to find work after 6 months on these courses. That way anyone claiming dole would be working to earn there benefit and could give something back to the tax payer. These placements would last 6 months as well further boasting someones chances of finding a suitable job.

Would they get paid at least minimum wage for doing the work placement, or the same wage rate as the employed workers they are working along side off. Part of the being employed experience is actually being paid.

Would they be able to do community work or work for charity instead of working for companies profiting from their labour if they are not going to be paid the going rate on a par with the company's employed staff.

Would private companies be restricted in there use of this labour if it is cheaper than employing people.

All of this would tackle the unemployment problem and sort out the dole queues.

How exactly does it create more jobs. You know the job vacancies for the unemployed to fill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

dovercat

Guest
I would pay the unemployed an extra £10 a week for doing 16hrs or more work for the community or charity. I would also exempt those doing so from Job Club, work placements, etc... but still require them to be applying for jobs. Maybe throw in a hot meal each day as well.

I do not see short term unemployment of able people as a problem. That is part of the capitalist system and part of the economic cycle. You will always have a level of unemployment and in a economic downturn you might have a lot of unemployment. I see the idleness and loneliness of unemployment being the problem hence the community and charity work, to give them a sense of self worth and get them out and with other people. Voluntary because I am trying to increase their self worth not punish them and you want willing workers not reluctant workers.

I would introduce a one year subsidy for employing the long term 2yrs+ unemployed. The long term unemployed would have the option to choose to enter the subsidized worker scheme.
The number of subsidized workers an employer would be eligible to get would be limited to a small percentage of their total number of employees at that level.
The employer gets a person whose pay is subsidized for one year, with the subsidy during that period halving after three months, then after six months then to zero after twelve months.
The employer would be able to replace the subsidize worker within the first month if they felt the person was not suitable. But are limited to two swaps. Before losing the option of a subsidized worker.
If the employer takes on - retains the person after one year they can take on another subsidized worker. But if they get rid of the person within three years of taking them on they can not take on a subsidized worker to replace them.

I see long term unemployment 2yrs+ as a problem. Part of that problem being unwillingness of employers to employ them, give them a chance. Hence the subsidized employment schemes. Another part of the problem being the JSA claimant giving up hope hence the option of a paid work placement with the prospect of a permanent job.


For disabled JSA recipients I would make actually looking for work optional, and remove all conditional and sanctions. They are unemployed, they are disabled hence unlikely to be able to find someone willing to employ them. So support will not be conditional on their efforts to find work as I would assume it is society that will not employ them, not them who are not willing to work.

For the disabled I would increase the number of placements available in work therapy, gardening therapy, art therapy, etc... and the number of drop in centers and clubs for them. So they are not left to sit at home. The work therapy, garden therapy, art therapy would be non-profit but would actually produce some goods forsale, so the projects are part self funding topped up with government money. All these things would be optional and I would include helping you in to work if you feel able and want to as one of the things to do as a option.

For the disabled unemployed I would introduce permanently subsidized jobs in the public sector and a larger one year time limited subsidy in the private sector. With all unemployed disabled having the option of going on the scheme not just the long term unemployed disabled. There would probably be a waiting list as I am not sugesting all unemployed disabled people could be employed.

I see disabled unemployment as a problem. Primarily due to unwillingness of employers to employ them, give them a chance. Hence the subsidized employment scheme in the private sector. Secondly due to their inability to compete on a level playing field hence the permanent subsidy in public sector jobs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IronGiant

Moderator
I suspect Gaz hasn't thought this one through completely. He's a bit worried the CIA are coming for him ATM.
 

namuk

Distinguished Member
Gaz is worried about Dole Queue's due to he has never been in one, that's because he could not lift is his none usefull earned certificates to the job centre which he earned to blag the system making out he had a job on paper that is, other than that the CV looks bloody good :thumbsup:.
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
Sadly i think high unemployment is likely to stay with us unless we bite the high taxation bullet and re employ people in the public sector.I say this because our economy is no longer fueled by and manufacturing industrial sector but seems to be served by financial services and by digital technology.
Unlike the technological changes of old such as steam engines , internal combustion engine and the electric motors which brought tens of thousands of jobs and from which continuous improvement were steady, modern technology moves at a frightening speed.Specialised skills are needed for each innovation but the numbers required for such changes are relatively small whilst the manufacturing processes take place abroad where labour rates are cheap.WE end up with a situation where a small number who are well versed in the knowledge economy command very high salaries , shareholders do well as do investment managers who are quick to spot the next big thing.
In effect innovation has become a closed circle where a few have become very rich whilst on the outside we witness ever growing inequality which will undoubtedly fuel more and more resentment.
This is why i believe high tax rates must stay and all loopholes should be closed.I also believe we should stop bellyaching about those "who sit on their behinds" as clearly the work isnt out there for all of them, and stop patronising those who try hard but get no success.One woman, when interviewed, said she had applied for over 50 jobs. At one particular vacancy she was one of 300 applicants.When she voiced her comments to her local Tory mp she was told to "try harder":thumbsdow.Maybe she should follow Norman Tebbit's classic piece of idiocy "get on your bike" to find work.
These are grim times and if we are not prepared to fund jobs in the public sector which actually is badly needed, then we should have the grace to shut up and show some compassion instead of moaning about tax rates
 
Last edited:

Berties

Banned
As long term unemployed these job clubs help, however some things from my experience.

Not enough computers so half the time you're waiting your turn. And when you do use them connection is shared so it's like dial up. I get more done at home.
Not spending too much time there, you cannot do 8 hours of job search every day for weeks at a time. After a while you're just seeing the same jobs, always written to every business in the area. Also what happens companies just throw headed envelopes from these job clubs straight in the bin (many have phoned saying stop sending is junk mail)

Adding to this work placements would be made mandatory if anyone was unable to find work after 6 months on these courses. That way anyone claiming dole would be working to earn there benefit and could give something back to the tax payer. These placements would last 6 months as well further boasting someones chances of finding a suitable job.

That's been done and I don't agree with that, it's just a method to get 6 months labour for nothing, paying £65 a week from the government, and the business get paid for it as well. 6 months isn't work placement, it's a 6 month employement contract. What happens they just get unskilled labour from these job clubs, take on 2-3 at a time, then after 6 months take on another 2-3. It wouldn't be too bad if they're training people up for a skilled job (like YTS scheme- engineering etc) But it's just unskilled work, box shifting, so when you finish you have gained no new skills, and you just feel used.

Rather than actually employ people. In fact they treat them worse than employees as know have no rights (was told to shift a heavy sofa on their own, up stairs with no lifting equipment)

16 hours a week job search sounds about right, any more and you'll just be applying for the same jobs/companies. Also if you're stuck there you don't have a chance to go round businesses yourself.

If work trial does take place, then they get paid - not a "requirement" to go for dole money, as they'll feel being used. If a work placement is in place, then a business can only take a certain amount of people in a year (so they're not abusing the system) and if only get paid same amount as before then equal in hours ie £65 a week - then max 10 hours a week work placement. And certainly not for 6 months, I'd say no more than 1 month for 10 hours a week. Anymore and you're employed.
 
D

dovercat

Guest
Maybe she should follow Norman Tebbit's classic piece of idiocy "get on your bike" to find work.

Unemployment levels are vastly different in different parts of the country. Unemployment is very low where I live and the long term unemployed seem to be either those incapable or unwilling to work. While in other parts of the country things are very grim. One of the reason I think EU economic migrants have taken jobs and not the UK unemployed is lack of mobility, willingness to relocate.

I think what we could do with is having very low or no tax for the low paid and rent control. So they can compete with EU migrants working short term in the UK, willing to sleep several to a room on the floor, and students who work part of the year so paying virtual no tax and live at home with mum and dad, and illegal immigrants who are cash in hand again no tax.

If we could bring the grey economy into the real economy by lowering tax and letting people legally work low paid or part time jobs while getting a higher level of state support than they would currently get. I think that would bring down the figures.

If we could massively reduce the number of agency workers. Many of whom seem to act as laundering agencies for illegal migrants, people committing benefit fraud or tax fraud, etc... It would be a good thing. Maybe give agency and temp staff more rights, or increase the tax on agencies.

A big part of the problem with these things I think is lack of sufficient deterrent to employers. It should be rare for a employer to pay someone cash in hand, or employ someone who has no right to work in the UK. Not common.

If we truly do not have enough jobs due to the shift from manufacturing to service industries. Then maybe in the long run reducing the working week and having a lower maximum working hours a week, and lowering retirement age or raising school leaving age. But I do not see why we should start doing that while we are employing lots of economic migrants and illegal immigrants, and lots of people in the grey economy. I think we could lower unemployment for UK nationals without resorting to such measures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sidicks

Banned
dovercat said:
Unemployment levels are vastly different in different parts of the country. Unemployment is very low where I live and the long term unemployed seem to be either those incapable or unwilling to work. While in other parts of the country things are very grim. One of the reason I think EU economic migrants have taken jobs and not the UK unemployed is lack of mobility, willingness to relocate.

Agreed - a lot of people think that jobs should come to them rather than people having to relocate where the work is (as they would have had to do 'in times gone by'.
:)
Sidicks
 

pandemic

Well-known Member
I agree with the relocation bit, but there's more to it. High unemployment seems to be higher as we move north, where the cost of living is much lower. Cheaper housing mostly, so it would be difficult for a family to move south where prices are not a little more but multiple times more. I moved from the Midlands to the south-east, but I'm single so it was fairly easy, but house prices are shocking a 1 bed apartment where I currently reside is £200K+. Where I grew up in the midlands a three bad terrace is £120K. So imagine a family trying to make that move, though there is no excuse for the young.
 

dazza74

Distinguished Member
Currently where I used to live in the South East the job centre has 13 pages of jobs advertised within 3 miles, where I live in North Devon currently it doesn't even make a page before your looking beyond 4 miles for work.

My solution to the problem would be to look to see whether basic manufacturing could be done more from people working at home. It's all very well saying people should get on their bike to find work, but all we end up with is more over crowding, rent sky rocketing in these parts of the country.

It's a really nice part of the world where I live, but opportunities are so limited, your lucky if you can find 12 month's continous employment as it's so tourist based the economy.
 
D

dovercat

Guest
I agree with the relocation bit, but there's more to it. High unemployment seems to be higher as we move north, where the cost of living is much lower. Cheaper housing mostly, so it would be difficult for a family to move south where prices are not a little more but multiple times more. I moved from the Midlands to the south-east, but I'm single so it was fairly easy, but house prices are shocking a 1 bed apartment where I currently reside is £200K+. Where I grew up in the midlands a three bad terrace is £120K. So imagine a family trying to make that move, though there is no excuse for the young.

That is why I mentioned rent control. Buying a home is simply not a option for most people moving north to south and private rents are prohibitively high for anyone with a family.

I live in Oxfordshire with a 40 min rail link to London. Near where I live the list price for a new build one bed apartment is about £151K so you would probably pay les then £136K maybe a lot less. While a admittedly small four bed detached house new build would be list price £280K so probably less than £252K maybe a lot less. A mid sized four bed detached new build list price £380K+, a large sized four bed detached they no longer seem to build at least not on estates.
Do not know what local small homes rents are but a four bed detached will set you back £1600+ a month, a three bed detached £1100+ a month.

Anyone on a low income with a family can not afford to live in the area unless they own their home or have social housing or get housing benefit. That I guess is why the low skilled where I live find it relatively easy to get a job, other low skilled UK workers from elsewhere in the UK can not afford to live in the area or get social housing in the area.

Given the choice of being unemployed living say in a reasonably nice house in a reasonably nice area, or struggling to make ends meet employed living in a worse house in a less nice area down South far from friends and family. Which would you choose. If it means living away from your wife and kids. If it means you actually end up financially worse. I can understand why many people choose to not relocate for work.

The other problem is transport costs. We need significantly lower rail and bus fairs and a better rail and bus system to make the work force more mobile.
Including the underground you are talking over £4,700 for a one year season ticket from where I live to London. Which is ridiculous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gibbsy

Moderator
There are 137,000 people unemployed in Wales, or 9.3% of the population. The median income for England is £21k, for Wales this falls to £19k yet in rural parts of Wales and the Heads of the Valleys are this falls to just £14k, if of course you can find a vacancy.

Ian and Duncan Smith made his remark to the people of Merthyr Tydfil that they had trains and so could find work in Cardiff, or even move to the city. Every job vacancy in Cardiff has 11 people chasing it, many are low paid service industry work. Even if people decided to move to Cardiff the average rent is around £700, whilst in the valleys it is around £450. Because of the geography of the area it can take two or three buses just to get to the train station and cheap it is not.

Perhaps one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the population being more mobile is the number of home owners with mortgages who cannot move because of negative equity. Yet it is the high level of rents and the inability to get a long term lease at an agreed rate that really stops people from moving to take on relatively low paid work.

If this government wants to help make the unemployed more motivated and mobile then they should do more to control the rental market instead of building more houses for the mortgage market which will just compound the problem.
 
D

dovercat

Guest
Perhaps one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the population being more mobile is the number of home owners with mortgages who cannot move because of negative equity. Yet it is the high level of rents and the inability to get a long term lease at an agreed rate that really stops people from moving to take on relatively low paid work.

The unemployed currently get some help towards the interest on the original mortgage they took out to buy the property. It is typically less than the interest payment and does not cover the capital repayments.
The government is time limiting this help to two years. After which they will get no help with their mortgage payments.

The unemployed with a mortgage look likely to lose their homes if they have not already.

I do not think negative equity in the home they are living in is the problem. I think it is the shear difference in house prices and rental prices between areas of high and low unemployment.

The low paid can not afford to house themselves and their families in a lot of areas. They need to already own a house in the area or have social housing, or be getting housing benefit.
If you do not live in the area you obviously do not own a house in the area.
If you do not live in the area and are able to work you are looking at a waiting list of many many years to get social housing, in most areas.

With Housing benefit and relocating the problem is that most landlords even if willing to take the tenant will often still require a admin fee of £100+ which will include a credit check, and a months rent in advance so £1000+

Maybe the government should start offering relocation grants for those who find a job away from where they live and guarantees to landlords willing to take them as tenant.
Maybe the government should start offering incentives for people unable to work who are in social housing to relocate out of areas of low unemployment, so the social housing can be offered to unemployed social housing tenants in areas of high unemployment willing to relocate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
I think we need a massive increase in social housing provided by housing associations rather than trying to restrict rent charged by private landlords.Where i live social housing rents are approximately 50% lower than the market levels.Friend of my wife lives in a one bed flat which costs less than £250 pm paid by housing benefit plus they are well maintained.Mind you i am not sure the local population will want a huge influx of unemployed from other areas looking for work as it would put pressure on the existing jobs .We have had a increase in foreign workers which no one seems to complain about, but they number in a few hundred and are employed mainly in the caring industry
 

sidicks

Banned
la gran siete said:
I think we need a massive increase in social housing provided by housing associations rather than trying to restrict rent charged by private landlords.

Given that you are by your own admission a private landlord, this is a slightly selfish / biased viewpoint....

It wouldn't be the first time one of your opinions resulted in you being better off / unaffected at the expense of someone else....
:facepalm:
 
Last edited:
D

dovercat

Guest
I think we need a massive increase in social housing provided by housing associations rather than trying to restrict rent charged by private landlords.

That is what they are doing near where I live. New estates are 40% affordable housing with 75% of that being social rented. So 30% of new housing is housing association rented housing.
At least that was the plan before the current government got rid of regional plans and targets for housing. Since the estates have planning permission and they have started building them, the plan may stay as is, or I guess they could seek to alter the mix.

Where i live social housing rents are approximately 50% lower than the market levels.
That may not last the government seems intent on raising social housing rents to be more on a par with the private rental market.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pandemic

Well-known Member
Given the choice of being unemployed living say in a reasonably nice house in a reasonably nice area, or struggling to make ends meet employed living in a worse house in a less nice area down South far from friends and family. Which would you choose. If it means living away from your wife and kids. If it means you actually end up financially worse. I can understand why many people choose to not relocate for work.

Ok I might sounds nuts, but I'd take the latter. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if I had children, personally I'd feel obliged to do so. Why? because for me morally it would be right. I'd rather live on meagre wages in the circumstances mentioned than teach my kids that it's ok to live off the state. I believe that would teach them a real life lesson and in time they'd have a greater level of respect for me for having done so.
But that's just the way I was brought up, rightly or wrongly.
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
Given that you are by your own admission a private landlord, this is a slightly selfish / biased viewpoint....

It wouldn't be the first time one of your opinions resulted in you being better off / unaffected at the expense of someone else....
:facepalm:


yes but i voluntarily control my letting charges,particularly important as one of my tenants is on housing benefit. They have been the same since i acquired the properties despite being advised to increase them.
 
Last edited:

Steven

Senior Moderator
I don't know if "naivety" or "ignorance" would be more apt to describe the ideas expressed in the first post

A mandatory job search session would only be of benefit if said person really did sit on their backside at home doing nothing. For those making an effort in doing daily applications and sending their CV's out, you are just wasting their time duplicating what they have already done and wasting tax payers money in equal measure. It's not as if looking at the same advert a few more times makes you any more attractive or more of a suitable candidate than the first time you laid eyes on it

The fact it displeases you that people have to be trusted to do job searches in private, so instead move them into large centres that require extra funding does not suddenly bring about employment. Which is what this is actually about. Not "I want to see what they are doing. Whilst I am at it, where are the bin men when they are not on my street Thursdays?"
Adding to this work placements would be made mandatory
You cannot do employability generically and en mass. If it were that simple then there would be no unemployment in this world. Each candidate should be looked at on their own merits, just as any employer would consider them. A seasoned professional does not need a work experience placement. Just as someone who has not got much on their CV really require tailored helpadvice instead of being treated like a secondary school student
 
D

dovercat

Guest
Ok I might sounds nuts, but I'd take the latter. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if I had children, personally I'd feel obliged to do so. Why? because for me morally it would be right. I'd rather live on meagre wages in the circumstances mentioned than teach my kids that it's ok to live off the state. I believe that would teach them a real life lesson and in time they'd have a greater level of respect for me for having done so.
But that's just the way I was brought up, rightly or wrongly.

I doubt I would. If I had a family I would want to see my wife and kids more than one or two days a month. It is not like it would be say 4-6 months away then back home, or being able to have the family move south and join the worker. This would be a permanent arrangement. A low paid worker would never be able to afford to buy or rent a family home near where they were working. I would not want to be a absentee husband and farther, especially if it means my family is no financially better off.
It is not like daddy was called off to fight a war, or had to go so mummy and the children did not starve to death. It was dads choice to leave because he feels it is immoral to live off benefits even if the fact he is working means we are no better off financially than if he had stayed. Because he thinks his not being here with us teaches you kids the value of work and that it is immoral to live on benefits. I think it is more immoral to leave the family if it does not at the very least provide the family with significantly more money.
If you are not making the family significantly better off. Then my view would be you are doing it for your own self-esteem and pride.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
Wow a decent response. Just what i like to see here at Av-forums. If we don't do something about the dole queues the Tories, disgruntled tax payers, bored people etc will only find excuses to either severely cut benefits or even abolish them.

If you boost up the efficiency of the dole queues, make job finding easier you will disable the critics and dole queue complainers to the point where they will eventually give up there chases and move on to something else.

Think about it
 

The latest video from AVForums

Guardians of the Galaxy Xmas Special, Strange World, Bones and All, and Cabinet of Dr Caligari in 4K
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom