4 ms·

You are going extreme on me now. I did not say "lazy guys won't work". I said a lot of people would love to work for their benefits. I have been in this situa

You are going extreme on me now. I did not say "lazy guys won't work". I said a lot of people would love to work for their benefits. I have been in this situation and hated. And I know a lot of pride people, that would not take free money. I have not said this is a solution to everything. I said, this would be a good thing and additionally should be put in the Constitution ("right to work"). I think there should be multiple social programs and people should be able to choose ones. Programs that are performing best should get more funds, the ones that are the worst should be removed.

shubb 9y ago
Such a programme was recently tried here in the UK. I don't know the details but friends effected mentioned: * Being required to attend an office full time where they were monitored job searching and required to do soft skills courses, which they perceived as not useful. * After an extended period of joblessness, being required to work for free (while recieving normal out of work benefit), for instance at a supermarket This was critisised because: * 'Jobless' people working for 1/4 the minimum wage displaced normal workers * The programme encouraged people to make a high volume of inappropriate job applications. These make it harder for employers to sift candidates who actually want a job (I notice - do you want 100 angry highschool dropouts applying for your developer roles?), and reduce time and energy available to chase real leads. * People who landed interviews for real jobs risked catastrophic penalties if they attended the interview, because the bureaucracy often failed to accept that this is what they were doing. You could argue that this was a badly executed programme. Or that it was more focused on reducing public spending by discouraging people using their social insurance than on rehabilitating anyone. Or you could argue that aspects were good and got a bad rap. For me, I think the nanny state can be terrifying, and that that no workplace needs people who'd rather be at home.
- BartSaM 9y ago
  This is another contradictory to what I said. I said working for public good - not supermarkets etc. Working in public spaces for community benefit. That is a huge difference. Why should someone on benefits work for a private business or even public offices? That is ridiculous! They are receiving public help, they should help the public. There is absolutely no place for the nanny state. Try not to look at things black/white.
  - prawn 9y ago
    I'm interested in seeing something as you've described too. All the little tasks that would make a community look really attractive, but that are ignored by councils. The sort of things you see industrious, elderly (often migrant) men do around their own gardens when they have endless spare time. Not back-breaking labour or anything especially unenjoyable, but tasks for people who have pride in having things look presentable.
    - shubb 9y ago
      There is though a workforce of gardeners employed by local governments and individuals that you would be displacing. Perhaps from a good job onto the work programme.
      - BartSaM 9y ago
        I do not see it would happen on a large scale. Those work-to-benefit could work on things, that local government cannot afford or are not planning to do. Even cleaning wild areas which are a serious problem in some parts of woods for example. Or cleaning beaches, or planting trees in remote areas. There are those things that simply are hard to achieve when you are tight on a budget already.
      - prawn 9y ago
        No, this would be in addition to that. Often the employed gardeners have maintenance schedules meaning they have limited time in each area. I know there are countless areas near me, my commute and my office that would benefit from a bit of extra attention.

shubb 9y ago

Such a programme was recently tried here in the UK. I don't know the details but friends effected mentioned: * Being required to attend an office full time where they were monitored job searching and required to do soft skills courses, which they perceived as not useful. * After an extended period of joblessness, being required to work for free (while recieving normal out of work benefit), for instance at a supermarket This was critisised because: * 'Jobless' people working for 1/4 the minimum wage displaced normal workers * The programme encouraged people to make a high volume of inappropriate job applications. These make it harder for employers to sift candidates who actually want a job (I notice - do you want 100 angry highschool dropouts applying for your developer roles?), and reduce time and energy available to chase real leads. * People who landed interviews for real jobs risked catastrophic penalties if they attended the interview, because the bureaucracy often failed to accept that this is what they were doing. You could argue that this was a badly executed programme. Or that it was more focused on reducing public spending by discouraging people using their social insurance than on rehabilitating anyone. Or you could argue that aspects were good and got a bad rap. For me, I think the nanny state can be terrifying, and that that no workplace needs people who'd rather be at home.

BartSaM 9y ago
This is another contradictory to what I said. I said working for public good - not supermarkets etc. Working in public spaces for community benefit. That is a huge difference. Why should someone on benefits work for a private business or even public offices? That is ridiculous! They are receiving public help, they should help the public. There is absolutely no place for the nanny state. Try not to look at things black/white.
- prawn 9y ago
  I'm interested in seeing something as you've described too. All the little tasks that would make a community look really attractive, but that are ignored by councils. The sort of things you see industrious, elderly (often migrant) men do around their own gardens when they have endless spare time. Not back-breaking labour or anything especially unenjoyable, but tasks for people who have pride in having things look presentable.
  - shubb 9y ago
    There is though a workforce of gardeners employed by local governments and individuals that you would be displacing. Perhaps from a good job onto the work programme.
    - BartSaM 9y ago
      I do not see it would happen on a large scale. Those work-to-benefit could work on things, that local government cannot afford or are not planning to do. Even cleaning wild areas which are a serious problem in some parts of woods for example. Or cleaning beaches, or planting trees in remote areas. There are those things that simply are hard to achieve when you are tight on a budget already.
    - prawn 9y ago
      No, this would be in addition to that. Often the employed gardeners have maintenance schedules meaning they have limited time in each area. I know there are countless areas near me, my commute and my office that would benefit from a bit of extra attention.