Work for your dole?

Tea drinker

gixerfixer wrote: »

Unfortunatly the longer you are on the dole the harder it is to get work. Employers dont like to hire people who have been out of work for more than a year or so.
I have actually been told to my face that i was lazy because i didnt work for 11 months.

I know what you mean. Would you agree that a system like this would offer a form of passport back to the workplace? At least it should reduce stigma, and offer up to date references.

brianthebard

latchyco wrote: »

That's one concept of how the unemployed are viewed and needs to be kicked into touch .

Some like to adopt the high moral ground about people out of work .As long as you were active and productive in other areas of your unemployment it should not matter .Real lazy people of course should be pushed to the back of the Q .

the lazy people probably aren't in the queue at all?I wouldnt mind working for the dole at all and think most people who are unemployed would be the same.Its hard to believe there are a few hundred thousand jobs waiting for people right now though.

SerialComplaint

theozster wrote: »

I don't really care what they do, just so long as they work for their money. Cleaning the streets is one. Community work is good no matter what.

If the streets need to be cleaned, why not create a real job and pay the person a decent living wage. Why would you want to have two street cleaners working side by side, one earning a decent wage and one earning dole for the same work.

Sounds like a scam for the state to get grunt work done for even less that the miserable rates paid to low level staff.

K4t

Enroll them in the army. Problem solved.

Tea drinker

I Don't agree K4t, I think military service would be better directed at problem teenagers (or all teenagers), or possibly some minor serial offenders.

Long term unemployed by and large aren't criminals, but people who need help. There are state agencies to help with training to get back in the workplace, but often the bridge back to full time employment doesn't exist. Or, they may have put up pschological barriers that prevent them being in gainful employment.
A "work for your dole" scheme is meant to bridge the gap to employment and demonstrate to people how they can return to the workforce. It's not targetted at all those on the dole, only the long term, who demonstrably need such help.

rainbow kirby

I've been on the dole for just over 2 months, and quite frankly I'm so bored I'd be happy to work for my dole. But it's not really an issue now, because I've decided to head back to college and finish my degree - just hope I don't end up in the same crap situation this time next year!

--amadeus--

This idea is being kicked around in the UK at the moment as well.

With the economy contracting there will be an increase in the number of people on benifits (of all kinds) and with construction being particularly hard hit some (many) of the new unemployed will be people with some skills and qualifications.

Hand in hand with an ecomonic slowdown is usually a reduction in government investment. Slackening economies generate smaller tax revenues which are also hit with higher benift claims leaving less capital available for investment.

And we also have a situation where the country is generally regarded as not being as "nice" a place to live asin teh "good old days" (nostalgia just ain't what it used to be!)

All claiments are comprehensivly vetted under teh current system anyway. It wouldn't be difficult to categorise all new registrations under a high/medium/low skillset marked out by industry sector. This could then create a pool of talent that can be used to reduce costs on badly needed infrastructural projects (all those SafePass qualified construction workers) and make the country a better place to live (graffitti removal, litter collection and other social and community work such as visiting the old or helping in nursing homes). All skillsets can be catered for - eg the hospitality industry is slowing so kitchen staff could help at canteens on the construction sites. If you are an IT worker you could be tasked with training or education, setting up school PC networks or whatever. Factory supervisors now out of work could supervise crews in any sector - man management is man management and it could count as cross training. All it takes is a little creativity.

Nor would this be restricted to those on unemployment benifit. Even those on long term sick could be found work. A bad back won't stop you reading to the blind for example.

This wouldn't be full time - 2 - 4 days per week. The economic benifits are clear - cost savings on capital projects coupled with a generally higher level of economic activity. The unemployed could use a project work based CV to show that even though they weren't in mainstream employment they were active and learned new skills. All it takes is imagination and will and a signifigantly nicer country would result.

Wompa1

I also think nobody with two or more offence on their criminal record should not be elegible for the dole but that might be deemed harsh. I'd just rather not think the guy that might from me isn't also getting paid from me at the same time.

SerialComplaint

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Hand in hand with an ecomonic slowdown is usually a reduction in government investment. Slackening economies generate smaller tax revenues which are also hit with higher benift claims leaving less capital available for investment.

[...]
It wouldn't be difficult to categorise all new registrations under a high/medium/low skillset marked out by industry sector. This could then create a pool of talent that can be used to reduce costs on badly needed infrastructural projects (all those SafePass qualified construction workers) and make the country a better place to live (graffitti removal, litter collection and other social and community work such as visiting the old or helping in nursing homes). All skillsets can be catered for - eg the hospitality industry is slowing so kitchen staff could help at canteens on the construction sites. If you are an IT worker you could be tasked with training or education, setting up school PC networks or whatever. Factory supervisors now out of work could supervise crews in any sector - man management is man management and it could count as cross training. All it takes is a little creativity.
.

My bolding for emphasis.

Thanks for confirming my worst fears that this is really about getting cheap labour. How can you have two kitchen staff/nurses aides/construction workers working side by side, one of whom is earning decent money, and the other of whom is getting the dole - being effectively punished for having the misfortune of finding himself on the dole.

If these works need to be done, then they should be filled as normal jobs paying a decent living wage, or tendered out to external providers as appropriate. It is grossly inequitable to pay two people doing the same work completely different wages.

--amadeus--

SerialComplaint wrote: »

My bolding for emphasis.

Thanks for confirming my worst fears that this is really about getting cheap labour. How can you have two kitchen staff/nurses aides/construction workers working side by side, one of whom is earning decent money, and the other of whom is getting the dole - being effectively punished for having the misfortune of finding himself on the dole.

If these works need to be done, then they should be filled as normal jobs paying a decent living wage, or tendered out to external providers as appropriate. It is grossly inequitable to pay two people doing the same work completely different wages.

Two points on that. 1st is that it is not uncomon for people to be on different rates of pay while doing fundamentally the same job.

2nd point is that at no stage was I considering mixing "public" and "private" labour. You are assuming I am coming from a right wing perspective of subsadising private corporations with state provided labour (like this). In fact I am coming in from a left wing perspective where I wouldn't have private companies involved at all. The entire project could feasibly be managed using entirley state labour so there would be no inequalities in pay and no "punishment" for those on the dole. As and when teh economy picks up again the pool of talent will shrink and so the state either brings these people on in full time jobs or reverts to sub-contracting.

SerialComplaint

--amadeus-- wrote: »

1st is that it is not uncomon for people to be on different rates of pay while doing fundamentally the same job.

It is quite uncommon for two people to be on different rates of pay while doing the same job in the same organisation for no good reason. There may be a good reason, such as years of service or experience. But discriminating on pay because one person was unfortunate enough to find themselves on the dole is certainly unethical, and probably illegal.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

2nd point is that at no stage was I considering mixing "public" and "private" labour. You are assuming I am coming from a right wing perspective of subsadising private corporations with state provided labour (like this). In fact I am coming in from a left wing perspective where I wouldn't have private companies involved at all. The entire project could feasibly be managed using entirley state labour so there would be no inequalities in pay and no "punishment" for those on the dole. As and when teh economy picks up again the pool of talent will shrink and so the state either brings these people on in full time jobs or reverts to sub-contracting.

I'm really not assuming anything, other than what you've said in your posts, which is that cheap labour will be available to the state. Perhaps you could clarify how you're going to "reduce costs on badly needed infrastructural projects" (all of which are tendered to private contractors) using state labour without having inequalities of pay? And perhaps you could clarify who is going to manage all these cheap labourers?

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Two points on that. 1st is that it is not uncomon for people to be on different rates of pay while doing fundamentally the same job.

2nd point is that at no stage was I considering mixing "public" and "private" labour. You are assuming I am coming from a right wing perspective of subsadising private corporations with state provided labour (like this). In fact I am coming in from a left wing perspective where I wouldn't have private companies involved at all. The entire project could feasibly be managed using entirley state labour so there would be no inequalities in pay and no "punishment" for those on the dole. As and when teh economy picks up again the pool of talent will shrink and so the state either brings these people on in full time jobs or reverts to sub-contracting.

SerialComplaint

--amadeus-- wrote: »

1st is that it is not uncomon for people to be on different rates of pay while doing fundamentally the same job.

It is quite uncommon for two people to be on different rates of pay while doing the same job in the same organisation for no good reason. There may be a good reason, such as years of service or experience. But discriminating on pay because one person was unfortunate enough to find themselves on the dole is certainly unethical, and probably illegal.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

2nd point is that at no stage was I considering mixing "public" and "private" labour. You are assuming I am coming from a right wing perspective of subsidising private corporations with state provided labour

PS - That's some scary stuff in the US prisons article. It's like a return to slavery.

--amadeus--

Bearing in mind experience or service two people can be doing fundamentally the same job for different amounts of money, so we broadly agree on that I think.

I wasn't impling that the private companies would have any further involvment - the state would use those on benifits of whatever discreption to replace private companies; the opposite of privatisation. And the starte (using current employees or again the suitably skilled from those on benifits) would do the supervising. Basically Sisks (or whoever) out, State in. Utopian, I know.

brianthebard

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Bearing in mind experience or service two people can be doing fundamentally the same job for different amounts of money, so we broadly agree on that I think.

Why do you want to create a two tier employment system within the state-if there are jobs available, why not just employ people from the dole, and give the long term unemployed preferential treatment at the interview and selection stage?

SerialComplaint

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I wasn't impling that the private companies would have any further involvment - the state would use those on benifits of whatever discreption to replace private companies; the opposite of privatisation. And the starte (using current employees or again the suitably skilled from those on benifits) would do the supervising. Basically Sisks (or whoever) out, State in. Utopian, I know.

Far from Utopia. For a start, on existing contracts, the State doesn't have the option to kick out Sisks or whoever on the whim of a policy change. The contracts are in place, and Sisks or whoever would rightly screw the State in every court in the land if the State walked away from existing contracts.

So that leaves new contracts - availability of cheap labour is a minor factor in taking on infrastructural contracts. Regardless of what labour is available, the state would be taking on huge risk by opting to complete these projects in-house, risk that is currently (and in recent years, successfully) outsourced to external contractors. The State of course would also need to put in place a management structure to manage such resources.

Given that economic cycles are cyclical, it is very likely that by the time the new contracts with the cheap labour are in place, the economy will be picking up and the State will have to complete with Sisks et al for labour.

So apart from the serious ethical issues involved in NOT paying people a fair wage for a fair days work, there are huge practical reasons why this is not a good idea.