As I am self-employed I am not entitled to unemployment benefits as such, and if I am unable to get work, then I have to rely on my savings. So it's difficult for me to say that I totally agree with the proposals or that I totally disagree with them as it is very unlikely that I will ever be in the position of the long term unemployed. Some of them may see it as a positive step to give them a sense of doing something, and for a few of them this may actually lead to offers of full time work. Others may see it as just a cost cutting exercise.

This is not Isadora's link, but is attached to it and goes into more details:

Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour'

Long-term benefit claimants could be forced to do compulsory manual labour under proposals being put forward by the government, it has emerged.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is set to outline plans for four-week placements doing jobs like gardening and litter clearing.

"The message will go across - play ball or it is going to be difficult," said Mr Duncan Smith.

Details will be unveiled in the Welfare Reform White Paper expected shortly.

Under the plan, claimants thought to need 'experience of the habits and routines of working life' could be put on the month long, 30-hour a week placements.

Anyone refusing to take part or failing to turn up on time to work could have their £65 Jobseekers' Allowance stopped for at least three months.

The Work Activity scheme is said to be designed to flush out claimants who have opted for a life on benefits or are doing undeclared jobs on the side.

Reports suggest it will target people believed to be sabotaging efforts to get them back into work.

The Welfare Reform White Paper, set to be unveiled in the coming week, will set out Mr Duncan Smith's plans for a universal credit to replace the range of benefits currently claimed by the jobless.

'Cycle of dependency'

Under the scheme, job advisers would be given powers to require tens of thousands of claimants to take part in community work for charities or local councils.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: "We will shortly be bringing forward further proposals on how to break the cycle of dependency blighting many of our communities and make sure work always pays."

Mr Duncan Smith said his plans were designed to reduce welfare dependency and make work pay.

He said: "One thing we can do is pull people in to do one or two weeks' manual work - turn up at 9am and leave at 5pm, to give people a sense of work, but also when we think they're doing other work.

"The message will go across; play ball or it's going to be difficult."

The UK has 5m people on out-of-work benefits and one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe, with 1.9m children living in homes where no-one has a job.

they haven't thought this through at all.

there is a proportion of the unemployed for whom this wouldn't be a bad idea (i.e. my waste of space ex...  if they made him work for free he would suddenly and miraculously discover he was fit to work, and go and do some declared paid work)....

but you just know that that proportion of the unemployed are the very people who will know how to avoid getting called up for this.

As Isadora says...  its gonna be the sick, or the vulnerable, or the peeps like Petercat who is working away towards a future career, that end up being caught up in this.

Also...  as someone who used to work in the NHS, and who's hubby now works for the council, the other side of this is that someone will have to supervise these people...   and I reckon it'll take some serious supervising...  at a time when, due to cutbacks, staff already have an almost unmanageable workload and are short staffed.

obviously disabled and sick people on benefits should not be made to work but the long term tracksuit wearing scroungers should be made to do some community work.
Yes i am a tad narked at these people as i have worked non stop since i left college and i am entitled to no help with council tax, bills etc when i was made redundant... only jobseekers for 6 months. Oh and if i wanted help with my rent at that point ( before i bought a place) i had to get rid of my dog and move to a 1 bed flat as i have no kids... boils my blood

Zis is a kepital idea. Zey ken bilt ein new autobahn von Birminkhem nach London.
Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

I heard yesterday that I'm now a fully fledged disabled person and will receive DLA. This took 3 years to thrash out (dismissed applications, dismissed appeals etc.). However, the method to determine this will change in January, so I'm fully prepared to start the good fight again. Having said all that, if they can come up with a job I can do at home (I could translate, but then I'd be in the same boat as El Loro and I just can't risk that), I'd be happy to do it.

As Dittysaid dor some who don't want to work they absolutely should but at a time when councils will be having to make cutbacks how long will it be before you get some poor sods doing more or less for free work that they previouslygot paid for,say for clearing litter, street cleaning etc?

I'm in total agreement that the slackers and deadbeats that don't want work and have no intention of every getting a job should be given a sharp short shock, Although I fear genuine people will certainly feel the brunt of the changes, I think the benefits plan is badly thought out, and to lose benefit and then housing benefit if you can't find a job, when 5 people are are chasing one job is plain stupid. This situation is only going to get worse and genuine claimants are going to be penalised. Cameron seems to class every claimant as a dole bum, but did we expect anything different from his government.

The fact of the matter is that there aren't enough jobs to go round so how can they penalise everyone not working?

It's an interesting  idea.

Presumably,  this work needs  doing, unless they will be made to paint  coals white, or something. 
So, Cameron's  Big Society  actually involves  laying off workers  and then using other benefits  claimants  to do the same work in an involuntary  voluntary  scheme.

I think Garage Joe makes a good point!

I agree with Dame Ann post and also I did not expect anything different from this government.

I imagine every GP's surgery will soon be besieged by demands for "too sick to work" notes. Some might even be legitimate requests.

I work in a GP's surgery...we get enough of them as it is!

Supply and demand, Croc.  These are very uncertain times for the workshy. They must be terrified of what lays ahead.

will be a nightmare sorting out the legit ones ....

I think that is what bothers me about the whole thing.
The so called workshy will find a way round it and the ones who do want to work or who ( as someone said further up) are trying to build a career up are the ones who will suffer.
And there is something very demeaning about the whole thing - not the actual litter clearing, but the stigma.

I agree Isadora

It amazes me that, in this day and age, successive governments can't sort out the shirkers (and I know a few of those!) from those genuinely in need (and I know some of those too)... And because of that we end up with all or nothing, one size fits all policies, which just don't work!

well said

well there is a stigma there...   for people who claim benefits, for people who are "unemployed"...   thing about the stigma's though...   the only people who are aware of it are the ones who claim for genuine reasons, that no one would begrudge, or who are genuinely unemployed but looking for work (or taking other steps towards a more secure future)..  

the ones who are the stereotype from which the stigma came about are completely unaware of it.



God I hate my ex!  

Cos that requires a trust that the people who are in the jobs that decide which is which have the common sense & ability to do just that!

As there seems to be a shocking lack of clarity, awareness & common sense in public sector management...   doing things by a yes/no flow chart is the only way they can function




(I can see I may have some way to go before I can say I am no longer bitter about my old career! )

So true

 Good post, Baz.


Ditty, nice to see you back with us.

The ridiculous thing about this proposal is that it already exists: it's called "New Deal".
New Deal takes several forms, but in its basic form, long-term unemployed are put on a 13-week scheme (which, incidentally, takes them off the unemployment register). On the scheme, they are put on a work placement which (at least in theory) could potentially lead to a proper job. They work on the placement 4 days a week, and the 5th day is spent on "training". While on the scheme, you still get your benifit, plus a "training allowance" (around £15 per week, I think?) and most of your travel expenses paid. If you refuse to go on New Deal, or drop off the scheme, you lose your benifit.

All of the Government's aims for the new proposal are already met (in theory) by New Deal, although it's significant that they've dropped the "may lead to a proper job" carrot of ND. In practise, it's been very difficult to find enough companies willing or able to take on people on the scheme, and so they're often placed with charity shops (which of course cannot lead to a proper job). And then, of course, there's always been accusation that firms only take ND people on because it's essentially free labor...

yeah... I remember New Deal.

When I was processing applications for lab assistants I used to have to  automatically give the New Deal people an interview.   

Most of them (there was one exception... and I did give her a job) didn't want to be there.. but had to attend the interview to get their dole money.    It got to the point where I would just whisper to them "do you actually want the job... or do you just have to attend... I don't mind which, but its easier all round if I know"

I dont think they will ever sort genuine people from the bone idle who dont want to work only the regional offices were people sign on  can do that and have tried and failed, but this government are taking it a step to far the genuine people who cannot find jobs or has been and are going to be made redundant in the future will suffer, that is what angers me with the Tories they really could not give a hoot with their unfair policies.

Exactamundo. So even more shortage of jobs.

I was just saying elsewhere that in theory, I agree with the scheme. There are people out there who have been claiming unemployment for years, simply because they're too damn lazy to work and too 'difficult' to deal with at the job centre. There are those who are on sickness benefit for a condition, but are still able to live a 99% normal, (very) active life (in some cases) and who could work. These people are the ones who need to be targeted.

I have to say though that not all of the 'workshy' or 'difficult' are categorised that way because they want to be. I know a few people who, on the surface, have right chips on their shoulders and no employer would touch them with a bargepole. But what these people need is encouragement, the feeling that they are not ostracised because of their colour or past or the way they look. There are some who have been knocked back for years and have suffered discrimination, that feel that they will never be accepted for who they are, and so adopt the attitude of 'stuff them' and have given up trying to do things the 'right way'.This doesn't apply to all of course.

In my opinion, for this system to work it HAS to be means tested and has to start at base level. Speculate to accumulate. There needs to be an advisory service of some kind in the Job Centres for people to be able to talk openly about their problems with going to work, how they really feel about society, why they feel excluded, etc, and sort out the genuine from the sheer damn lazy at that level. Too often people are just pigeon-holed and treated as reference numbers and it's wrong. How many people who are claiming JSA through redundancy, and who have years of a specialised career behind them (especially older people), are going to be forced to picking up litter? How demotivating is THAT?! How is that deemed as 'looking after' people and utilising their skills?

Why would our kids want to do well in school and get good grades when already, graduates are finding it almost impossible to get jobs to match their skillset? Not to mention the rise in education fees.

And while all this is happening, those who work in Government are unaffected, still enjoying their luxury lifestyles. If I saw those people say 'we are prepared to take a salary cut to try and help this country' then I might start to believe they actually give a shit.

Personally I think this could be a good idea - there is no denying that our welfare system needs a major overhaul and this could be one way to do this.

From reading the article i believe that this would purely relate to those who refuse to work rather than those unable to work.  Taking benefits away from these people is the  only way to go as otherwise they have no reason to work - also if they are refusing to do paid work why not make them do the other jobs that need doing but are usually pushed to the bottom of the pile.

Because it is still taking a salaried role away from someone and giving it to someone else for the JSA rate - and there are going to be enough job shortages as it is.

Unless of course, they are going to take these people off JSA and pay them the salary rate - that would seem to make more sense.

We'll probably have to wait to see the details, but as I said in an earlier post, this proposal is essentially a re-working of the existing New Deal scheme. People on ND do not get paid anything for the work they have to do - not even minimum wage - even though they're expected to work 24 hours per week for 13 weeks. If they refuse or drop off the scheme, they lose their benefits. They do get about £15 per week training allowance, but there's no training element to the new scheme, so that presumably won't exist this time round.


So what we're talking about is all long-term unemployed being forced to do several weeks of unpaid manual labour. It's not about those who have refused paid work - under current rules, they would lose their benefits anyway - but rather it's everyone who doesn't have a reason such as illness for being unavailable for work.


I thinnk my biggest problem with this new scheme is the "manual work" line. The government claims it's not about "punishing or humiliating" those out of work, but that's exactly what it looks like. Why insist on "manual work"? Are they saying that that's all the long-term unemployed are good for? On ND, you're more likely to work in a shop or office environment. 
This all looks suspiciously like mere pandering to the "Daily Mail reader" wing...


And then there's the wider perspective: The government's currently in the process of sacking thousands of public servants, and yet here they are bringing in the unemployed to do much of that work - only unpaid...

It would, but I'd bet serious money that that's not what's going to happen.
The unemployed currently on New Deal do not get paid. They get their existing benefits (although they're taken off the unemployment register), a small training allowance and most of their travelling expenses. And that's for working 24 hours per week for 13 weeks...

totally agree with this Karms  but they also need to look at the 'shameless' families who keep producing offspring in the knowledge that all will be paid for by the state.

The only problem I have with this is that don't we already have a system like this that doesn't actually run very well - Community Service???  This sounds suspiciously like they are criminalising being sick, disabled or those unfortunate to have lost a job recently!   If these jobs are available for this scheme why aren't they available at minimum wage and available now?   

How do people look for a job if they are on these schemes because you're there practically full time?

I also agree that the people that will be largely affected by this will be those that genuinely want to work or those that are too sick to put up a fight   (maybe that's his plan to kill us off and then not have to pay us anything in benefits and joy of joy we won't reach retirement age to claim anything then) 

Not everyone that is more than capable of holding down a job is capable of manual labour. I work but couldn't do manual work so if i was unemployed I'd be screwed even though there is plenty of work i can do, just not manual work (two frozen shoulders pretty much see to that...I can do some stuff but not 24 hours a week!)

THIS is the nail on the head Croc... its what I was trying to get at.

I heard a suggestion on one forum that disabled people could be employed to lick envelopes   why I've no idea but that's the sort of job we disabled should be doing 

This is one of the problems with the current New Deal scheme that doesn't get a lot of publicity.
People on ND are working 4 days a week, so can't realistically job-hunt on those days. The 5th day per week is a designated "training" or jobsearch" day. Typically, half of that day is spent on "training", usually covering very general topics such as "workplace bullying" or "teamwork". Only the other half-day is spent actually job-hunting, and the facilities available for that will depend on the training provider. (Remember, this is not run by the DWP - it's contracted-out to charities...)

It should be pointed out that officially, the whole idea of ND is that the placement could potentially lead to a proper, full-time job. This certainly does happen (see Dirtyprettygirlthing's earlier comment), but the (unofficial) figures I've heard are around 40% of those on the scheme going into work. Unfortunately, a lack of suitable placement vacancies often means that people end-up being placed in charity shops...

I said this earlier somewhere else:

They can shove that RIGHT up their anus! I would LOVE to go back to work. I have spent 16 years building up a career that paid me a nice salary, gave me a nice car, nice holidays and I thoroughly enjoyed what I did for a living. I'm now not even allowed to work from home in a consultant/freelance capacity. If they want to organise transport every day for me, allow me to move about every half an hour, accept that I might fall asleep at the drop of a hat, take bloody ages to get from one end of the office to another, have to take regular breaks cos I'm in agony, put up with the stink of tiger balm, accept that my legs could just go on me and kit out the building so it's safe for when I fall, then fine, they can find me a job!

I'd also need someone to hold up the envelopes for me so I can lick them properly, too

I hope it never happens to them then, tw@ts  

The more I think about it the more I'm fuming, would Cameron or Clegg shovel sh*t when they get kicked out of office..NO! Because neither one of them have had to go down to the local shop to put money on their gas or leccy card. Neither one of them have had to try and find collage fee's, neither one of them have had to try and find housing and claim housing benefit. Neither one of them have applied for 53 jobs in one week, then offered a 13 week course working in a bar for an extra 2 quid a week on top of their JSA .

If Cameron wants to prove he's as in touch as he likes to proclaim, maybe he needs to spend a month living in other people's shoes. I'm dismissing Clegg cos he's a spineless idiot.