Sort out the Dole Queue

1.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.

2.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.



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

4.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.

5.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.



6.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.



7.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.

8.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.

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



10.How exactly does it create more jobs. You know the job vacancies for the unemployed to fill.

Right in answer to your questions:smashin:

1. Yes they could choose to stay longer and of course there will be heating and hot drinks. Hot water that's about it. The state can no longer even afford to give free drinks out. Truth is all these drinks given out over the 15 year reign of the last government will of racked up quite a big bill and debt.

2. No they do not have to bring packed lunches but are welcome to do so. People JSA should cover there lunches and the state can no longer afford to keep giving people free meals. They have done this for years to the point where they can no longer afford to.

3. That is just unfortunate with the climate. However there could be a one in a blue moon for training providers to throw a small party to say thank you for attending. Would be better than nothing and wouldn't cost that much since a cheap store would be a good start.

4. Glad you see a positive side to those suggestions. People are scared of changes but they dont always end up for the worse most of the time the better. The state has to much debt now to be allowing everyone whos unemployed to live on JSA. If the unemployment debt got tackled then that would be a different story since the welfare bill wouldn't be a concern to anyone anymore.

5. Yes of course they could even i have my limits you know. I do have a heart like other people.

6. The problem is to many people on the unemployment list are not doing enough to find work and are not being asked to increase there activities. If everyone unemployed did this finding work would be made a lot easier than it is now.

7. No they would still get there JSA or benefits and once they became employed with that company they would sign of. Its not about forcing people to work in placements its about cutting down a deficit and saving money where it needs to be saved.

8. Yes they can do voluntary work and private companies as well would have a limit before they would be told they could have no more people if they didn't employ anyone and could not provide proof of a legit reason for not doing so.

9. Yes they would even i stand up to private companies who would try to abuse the free labor.

10. By keeping people active and having them search for work or out on placement keeping there cv's upto date it attracts the employers eye and also gives those people a higher chance of getting a job. And using the internet to combine all the job search websites into one super network it opens up many more jobs. A lot of jobs available are on different websites and not always the same ones which is why most people don't find work as well as they should be able to..
 
If you boost up the efficiency of the dole queues
A patronising phrase that means little - please note given your forum history, it is in that context I realise it is meant to put people down. As this very thread demonstrates.

Where's the funding to increase staff numbers and training to provide tailored employment advice and assistance? Back to the central point that generic advice does not help at the individual level for many. Putting everyone in big farms is pointless. They might as well carry on job hunting online at home/at the library as they currently are doing
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.
Once again, genuine benefit is the goal here. Moving people into a public place just so you can keep tabs on them does not actually solve their employment status. That really cannot be explained in simpler terms. How does putting a large number of unemployed into a big supervised room help them find employment? So doing so will also magic up jobs?

If you are not genuinely interested in helping people but rather in yourself, then that's your very first hurdle there. How do you expect to help someone find a job if your only interest is to ensure they are job hunting 24/7 at your beckoning when the reality is that job sites primarily only update themselves once daily anyway
Think about it
I have ;)
 
Until you've been on long term unemployed I don't think you should have a say in the matter, as you're just preaching from a soap box and don't have the experience what the employed have.

It's easy to preach when you're being head hunted and getting job offers left right and centre, then moving from one department to another, and to when you've been out of a work for a while, had a large gap in employement history, cannot give references (ie if people have died or businesses have gone bust) or you've been in prison, or applying for jobs where hundreds of people are applying for every single job.

Easy say "go voluntary" have you tried that? They're picky of the people they choose too.

Going to the job clubs and talking to them gives an insight into reasons, not all are "dole scum that are taking my tax money" Most of them are intelligent, highly skilled people.
 
Last edited:
The state can no longer even afford to give free drinks out. Truth is all these drinks given out over the 15 year reign of the last government will of racked up quite a big bill and debt.

People JSA should cover there lunches and the state can no longer afford to keep giving people free meals. They have done this for years to the point where they can no longer afford to.

Considering tabloid headlines of thousands of desperate families rely on parcels and roadkill as they cannot afford food. Would it not be a good idea to feed them or would it be seen as admitting JSA is not enough to survive on.
Although I think the problem is partly down to people on benefits still trying to pay debts like credit cards or make mortgage payments.

My main concern is rather than offering help and providing a incentive to take that help. You are using the threat of benefit sanctions to get people to do things they may not want to do, like spend their days at Job Club.
You seem to be assuming they need to be forced to look for work, otherwise they would not bother, and that you know how best they should look for work.
If they are not actively seeking employment and able to prove it to the satisfaction of the Job Center they are already not eligible to claim JSA and subject to benefit sanctions.
But if they are in a area of high unemployment or are themselves unlikely to be offered a job due to barriers to employability. Then their jobsearch activities are likely to be futile. You need to increase the number of jobs available to them, by relocating them, or re-skilling them, or giving employers an incentive to employ them.

The state has to much debt now to be allowing everyone whos unemployed to live on JSA. If the unemployment debt got tackled then that would be a different story since the welfare bill wouldn't be a concern to anyone anymore.

The welfare bill would best be described as the pensions bill. JSA is a small part of the welfare bill.

The problem is to many people on the unemployment list are not doing enough to find work and are not being asked to increase there activities. If everyone unemployed did this finding work would be made a lot easier than it is now.

The problem is lack of jobs. In a economic downturn unemployment goes up, so the JSA bill goes up. Down to lack of jobs. Not an increase in unwillingness to work. Having people look harder for work does not increase the number of jobs available. Most short term unemployed are desperate to get a job, some long term unemployed may have given up hope but long term unemployed are the minority and they need their confidence restored not to be treated like they are lazy good for nothings.

No they would still get there JSA or benefits and once they became employed with that company they would sign of. Its not about forcing people to work in placements its about cutting down a deficit and saving money where it needs to be saved.

If the choice is go on the work placement or lose your benefits how is it not forcing people on to work placements.

If the government is still paying their JSA while they are on the work placement how does it reduce the deficit or save money. The beneficiary seems to be the company providing the work placement.

private companies as well would have a limit before they would be told they could have no more people if they didn't employ anyone and could not provide proof of a legit reason for not doing so.

So it is basically a 6 month job trial, for a potential offer of permanent employment. With the person working for free (with the government paying them JSA) during the trial.
Why if there is a job vacancy they should fill it and pay the worker. I have never been asked at a job interview to work 6 months for free as part of the interview process.

If the person is someone the employer might be reluctant to employ like long term unemployed 2+yrs or disabled then I can see the reason for providing the employer with a incentive to give them a try, although I think it is still unjustified to expect the worker to work for JSA for 6 months.

By keeping people active and having them search for work or out on placement keeping there cv's upto date it attracts the employers eye and also gives those people a higher chance of getting a job.

Being in paid employment even if it is low paid unskilled I think makes a person more employable, looking for a better job while in paid employment.
But doing unskilled low paid jobs for free under threat of benefit sanctions, I do not think makes the person more employable.
Will the work placement providers have to provide any training, will the work placement provider have to provide the person with a reference as to time keeping, attitude, etc...

And using the internet to combine all the job search websites into one super network it opens up many more jobs. A lot of jobs available are on different websites and not always the same ones which is why most people don't find work as well as they should be able to..

It is not like the employer is going why has no one applied for the job I advertised. They are usually swamped by applications. If they can not find a suitable candidate it is usually down to a skills shortage. Re-skilling the unemployed in areas that there are skills shortages would be a good idea in my view.
If the unemployed can not find a job despite jobs being available, as pointed out in previous posts, I think that is down to lack of mobility. Helping the unemployed to relocate to areas of lower unemployment and reducing transport costs and taxes on low paid work I think would help. The job vacancy is no good to the unemployed person if taking that job is unviable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re-skilling the unemployed in areas that there are skills shortages would be a good idea in my view.

Yup, JSA offered training courses, but offered very little advice so I took the FLT course. I course with the number of immigrants and those on JSA taking FLT, the FLT market is now swamped. Before it used to be a well paid, with few FLT drivers going round. Now you have dozens of FLT drivers applying for the same jobs, including immigrants, and wages have dropped from £14 a hour (£11 usually) to £6.08-£6.50. Maybe £7 if you're lucky or job requires CB/counterbalance/bendy use.
 
Considering tabloid headlines of thousands of desperate families rely on parcels and roadkill as they cannot afford food.

You don't know the back story behind that headline though mate. I'd argue that if somebody has kids, is getting child benefit and child tax credit they should be able to afford food. That's just knowing a bit about the benefits system and going into a supermarket. I could well imagine people on benefits not being able to acquire credit and getting in hock to the local loan shark and not being able to feed themselves due to their punitive interest rates.
 
You don't know the back story behind that headline though mate. I'd argue that if somebody has kids, is getting child benefit and child tax credit they should be able to afford food. That's just knowing a bit about the benefits system and going into a supermarket. I could well imagine people on benefits not being able to acquire credit and getting in hock to the local loan shark and not being able to feed themselves due to their punitive interest rates.

My wife went shopping in our local Tesco today. In the foyer was a charity giving out lists and asking people to buy certain basic foods to be put into hampers for the needy. The last time we gave food to a local charity was during Thatchers destruction of the mining communities. It's not a headline, it's a reality.

Your forget that people on benefits still have to pay for heating, lighting, insurance, it's not just about food. Even if they have child benefit they still have to clothe the child. My seven year old grandson is going through shoes at the moment as if there was no tomorrow.
 
... Even if they have child benefit they still have to clothe the child. My seven year old grandson is going through shoes at the moment as if there was no tomorrow.

I think a lot of this could be done at school and would be cheaper (than child benefits) due to volume and create a few jobs in the process. Basically we pass part of the responsibilities to schools, so children get 2 decent meals a day (breakfast/lunch) and uniforms should be supplied by the school (including shoes). I was speaking to a teacher just a few months ago who was clearly miffed at some (a minority) of parents, who seemed to have enough money to buy fags, but not shoes for their kids. Told me of how one child was brought to school on a very rainy winters day, with shoes that were totally worn out, so the child's socks and hence feet were drenched in freezing cold water. Ending up taking the child into town and buying them a pair from her own pocket.
I know it's a bit 'nanny state', but if it gets the job done I don't see problem with it. PS. I'm not saying take away all child benefits, but take control where it can serve the child better. Also, this isn't suppose to be extra work for teachers as we'd have people trained to do what is necessary in the various scenarios. I thinks that fairly useful job creation.
There may be flaws in my thought process here, but it came to mind.
 
I think a lot of this could be done at school and would be cheaper (than child benefits) due to volume and create a few jobs in the process. Basically we pass part of the responsibilities to schools, so children get 2 decent meals a day (breakfast/lunch) and uniforms should be supplied by the school (including shoes). I was speaking to a teacher just a few months ago who was clearly miffed at some (a minority) of parents, who seemed to have enough money to buy fags, but not shoes for their kids. Told me of how one child was brought to school on a very rainy winters day, with shoes that were totally worn out, so the child's socks and hence feet were drenched in freezing cold water. Ending up taking the child into town and buying them a pair from her own pocket.
I know it's a bit 'nanny state', but if it gets the job done I don't see problem with it. PS. I'm not saying take away all child benefits, but take control where it can serve the child better. Also, this isn't suppose to be extra work for teachers as we'd have people trained to do what is necessary in the various scenarios. I thinks that fairly useful job creation.
There may be flaws in my thought process here, but it came to mind.

Everyone is skeptical about these counter maneuvers but yet has anyone pointed out the positive benefits this could give to the UK. Of course not. Nobody likes changes and no one likes being worse off, we just cant afford to keep giving people welfare unless we tackle it fast.
 
Everyone is skeptical about these counter maneuvers but yet has anyone pointed out the positive benefits this could give to the UK. Of course not. Nobody likes changes and no one likes being worse off, we just cant afford to keep giving people welfare unless we tackle it fast.

This is just not about welfare. There is genuine poverty in the valleys, even for those with jobs. A lot of the food parcels being collected are being given to families with a working parent. To say inflation is just 5.2% is laughable when things you need to get you through every day is going up at a breakneck speed.

You just can't go on clobbering the poor. Unless government finds a Plan B, which seems very unlikely with Opless Osborne at the helm, and gets people decent well paid jobs we will be back to the poverty levels of the 1930s.
 
You just can't go on clobbering the poor.

It's the Tory led govt's intention to do just that.

An example that was posted today and appears on page 46 of the Autumn Statement, the govt are taking £1.2bn per year from family tax credits and just £300m from banks. How fare is that?
 
It's the Tory led govt's intention to do just that.

An example that was posted today and appears on page 46 of the Autumn Statement, the govt are taking £1.2bn per year from family tax credits and just £300m from banks. How fare is that?

Presumably ignoring the tens of billions of income tax, corporation tax and NIC...
:facepalm:
Sidicks
 
Some councils have asked to be able to set welfare entitlement criteria and welfare benefit rates at the local level. Once the Localism Bill gets royal assent at the end of this year.

"Proposal theme: Worklessness, unemployment and skills: The duty to set the eligibility criteria and amounts payable for all working age benefits for all claimants in Essex be devolved from central government to ECC."

"Any set of benefit rules must provide a decent standard of living for all while also providing, wherever possible, an incentive for the recipient to find work. However, there is an intrinsic problem with any nationally set rules in that huge local variations exist in what can be classified as a ‘decent standard of living’ and ‘an incentive to find work’. The failure by the existing benefits system to take this into account causes adverse effects on both the economic and social sustainability of local communities"

"We therefore propose that the duty to set the eligibility criteria and amounts payable for all working age benefits for all claimants in Essex be devolved from central government to ECC."

"Alongside this, it may become necessary to alter other, related benefits."
 
Presumably ignoring the tens of billions of income tax, corporation tax and NIC...
:facepalm:
Sidicks

I have no doubt that Banks as businesses pay various taxes, but I don't think income tax is one of them, the employee pays the income tax, the employer collects it on behalf of HMRC.
 
How about training all those of employable age that live in 'temporary accomodation' that arent in gainful employment and claim benefits, the skills to build permanent social housing?

Just a musing from me. I'm a single parent who works. I spent 8 years in temporary accomodation (proposed by the council & provided by housing associations that charged £300 PW for tiny housing which was ultimately owned by a private landlord. Perversely this was a council house which was sold).

I'm now in temporary accomodation in a brand new flat close to wembley stadium. The building was only erected because the council decided to exploit the off-balance sheet PFI route. It cost £5million to build. It will ultimately cost £18 million when paid off.

The builder is a french company. Everyone involed was french, except the labourers and tradsespersons. However I spent enough time pre-occupation of the site to become amazed & dismayed. Not 1 english speaking crew on the whole site.

THERE WAS NO ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE IN THE COMPANY RESPONSIBLE FOR A MAJOR 70 HOME PROJECT!

The building is rife with faults and snags, the servicing is a joke. PEaople turn up at my door with bits of paper to explain what they have come to do because they cant speak ANY english.

The only english as a first language speaking people ive met throughout the whole build process and after living here 1 year is 1 other tenant.... Out of 70 homes.

If we really want to reduce the dole queue for british people, we can start with insisting that any PFI contractor employs and trains the poorest (previously me included) to learn to build. And maybe speak french....

Paul
 
Phil57 said:
I have no doubt that Banks as businesses pay various taxes, but I don't think income tax is one of them, the employee pays the income tax, the employer collects it on behalf of HMRC.

But the employers pay the salary from which the tax is paid? If they didn't exist, no taxes would follow.

The city generates a net £50bn+ of tax per year
 
Your forget that people on benefits still have to pay for heating, lighting, insurance, it's not just about food. Even if they have child benefit they still have to clothe the child. My seven year old grandson is going through shoes at the moment as if there was no tomorrow.

I basically live on benefits, your not telling me something I don't already know. In fact the working tax credit I get is less than JSA. I actually find food not to much of a problem as you can always eat cheaply if you put your mind to it and buy stuff when it's on offer etc. I'm not saying things are easy but, kids clothes have never been cheaper. I just find it all gets a bit sensational at times these stories, I'm a bit sceptical to be honest. I think it was a lot harder for kids growing up like I did in the 80's, you could have two working parent's and still find a can of proper coke was a real luxury.
 
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

Log into your youtube channel i sent you a message
 
I basically live on benefits, your not telling me something I don't already know. In fact the working tax credit I get is less than JSA. I actually find food not to much of a problem as you can always eat cheaply if you put your mind to it and buy stuff when it's on offer etc. I'm not saying things are easy but, kids clothes have never been cheaper. I just find it all gets a bit sensational at times these stories, I'm a bit sceptical to be honest. I think it was a lot harder for kids growing up like I did in the 80's, you could have two working parent's and still find a can of proper coke was a real luxury.

You think you had it hard in the 80s. I was a child in the 50s, my parent were so poor that my mother cut holes in the pockets of my trousers just to give me something to play with.:(:D
 
But the employers pay the salary from which the tax is paid? If they didn't exist, no taxes would follow.

The city generates a net £50bn+ of tax per year

I very much understand that, but that was not what was posted.
 
Phil57 said:
I very much understand that, but that was not what was posted.

So what exactly what was the point??

Ignoring the main taxes that banks pay, they don't pay much in the way of tax?
:confused:
Sidicks
 
So what exactly what was the point??

Ignoring the main taxes that banks pay, they don't pay much in the way of tax?
:confused:
Sidicks

My point was quite clear, banks do not pay income tax, they indeed pay a great deal of other taxes.:smashin:
 
Phil57 said:
My point was quite clear, banks do not pay income tax, they indeed pay a great deal of other taxes.:smashin:

Thanks - i guess i meant what was the point of the original post on this topic, as it seems somewhat meaningless - I assume it was an attempt at cheap point-scoring?!
:confused:
Sidicks
 
Thanks - i guess i meant what was the point of the original post on this topic, as it seems somewhat meaningless - I assume it was an attempt at cheap point-scoring?!
:confused:
Sidicks

Not at all, but if that's how you see it................so be it!!:facepalm:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom