community for jobless

[leasky32]

have a look at this

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/282607/Jobless-face-community-work/

[Nystagmite]

This is pretty much happening now - why is it news, then?

 

Also, if you work for 30 hours a week, when are you able to sign on and job hunt? Most places are open 9-5, Monday-Friday.

[count orlok]

Don't criminals have to do community work as reparation for their crimes? Will the unemployed get different jackets to the criminals?

 

 

 

Oh sorry, under king David's regime the unemployed (and the sick and disabled) are criminals.

 

How does that work with the minimum wage? 30 hrs at minimum wage is not £51.85 for under 25s or £65.45 for over 25s. It is £78 for apprentices, £110.40 for 16 to 17 year olds, £149.40 for 18 to 20 year olds, and £182.40 for over 21 year olds. I would imagine that most unemployed single people would be prepared to work for 30 hours at those rates if the jobs existed. Any reasonable person certainly would not expect them to work for £1.73 or £2.18 an hour.

 

How exactly are they going to get these jobs from, are they going to sack the people who are already doing the Jobs? If not why can't they make the jobs available to the unemployed at or above the minimum wage. Normally to work for £1.73 or £2.18 an hour this day and age you would have to be an illegal immigrant or unemployed trying to get a few extra coppers to be able to buy enough food to live on.

 

Who will get the benefit of all this slave labour, will David's buddies be able to get the "contract", or will it go to a company like ATOS (as a bonus for getting all those malingerers off Incapacity benefit)?

[watchinginvestigation2011]

Some good common sense replies appearing under the article.

 

Suprised they wont be made to wear striped jump suits and walk in line singing for motivation !!!!!!

[Nystagmite]

How does that work with the minimum wage?

 

This is what I'm wondering too.

[frank_begbie]

Yet another scheme to disguise the real unemployment figures.

They'll be bragging next year at how unemployment is coming down.

 

Seen it all before. They must think we're all daft.

[leasky32]

i was reading something under there own regulations where does it say we must work for benefits, seen this

 

This article extends the scope that all the work for your benefit schemes under Section 17A cannot be enforced due to conflict between different clauses of the law. Whereas jobseekers can be requested to undergo “training” (employment programmes) such as the Work Programme and Mandatory Work Activity; they cannot be forced to work for their benefit. Under New Deal and Flexible New Deal MWRA jobseekers participated in work placements – regardless of the criticism of such, the placements were solely accounted for as to help jobseekers gain employment via new skills and more experience, rather than simply earning their benefits.

This new Section 17A conflicts in law with the main provisions of the Jobseekers Act 1995. Regulations (if written correctly) can force jobseekers on a scheme made under Section 17A but cannot lawfully force a jobseeker to work for their benefits. Likewise, Jobcentre Plus cannot lawfully impose benefit sanctions on participants refusing to work for their benefits as long as they attend without prior refusal whilst just withholding their labour due to a lack of lawful authority.

This is because the conditions for Jobseekers Allowance makes absolutely no mention of “working” to receive your benefit. Other than the main clauses, jobseekers are obligated to register for both employment and training. There is no such clause requesting jobseekers to earn their benefit by working any amount of hours. This is the reality that the Conservatives and the Coalition Government has to live up to – and thats ultimately the Work Programme will fail or be scaled back as a bare minimum.

[leasky32]

i was reading something under there own regulations where does it say we must work for benefits, seen this

 

This article extends the scope that all the work for your benefit schemes under Section 17A cannot be enforced due to conflict between different clauses of the law. Whereas jobseekers can be requested to undergo “training” (employment programmes) such as the Work Programme and Mandatory Work Activity; they cannot be forced to work for their benefit. Under New Deal and Flexible New Deal MWRA jobseekers participated in work placements – regardless of the criticism of such, the placements were solely accounted for as to help jobseekers gain employment via new skills and more experience, rather than simply earning their benefits.

This new Section 17A conflicts in law with the main provisions of the Jobseekers Act 1995. Regulations (if written correctly) can force jobseekers on a scheme made under Section 17A but cannot lawfully force a jobseeker to work for their benefits. Likewise, Jobcentre Plus cannot lawfully impose benefit sanctions on participants refusing to work for their benefits as long as they attend without prior refusal whilst just withholding their labour due to a lack of lawful authority.

This is because the conditions for Jobseekers Allowance makes absolutely no mention of “working” to receive your benefit. Other than the main clauses, jobseekers are obligated to register for both employment and training. There is no such clause requesting jobseekers to earn their benefit by working any amount of hours. This is the reality that the Conservatives and the Coalition Government has to live up to – and thats ultimately the Work Programme will fail or be scaled back as a bare minimum.

[leasky32]

OK im getting confused by this thing, on another forum some one was saying that they take in this 2 years of benefits into consideration when people are put on this community work thing

this is from another forum

 

Since you appear to be really struggling, I shall put it in the most basic terms

 

1. Person is given £5,000 per annum
   
2. Person only works 26 weeks a year
   
3. 5,000 divided by 26 = 192.30
   
4. Therefore for the work done, person earns equivalent of £192.30 per week. Despite it being divided over 52 weeks.
   

 

Surely even you can manage to work that one out.

 

but they way this person saying this that the 2 years on the work programme, and paying benefits will be taking into consideration for the equivalent mouth of work for these 26 weeks or is it bull crap

[Nystagmite]

Where did the £5k per annum come from? A single person under 25 gets £53.45 (£2779.40 per year) per week and a single person over 25 gets £67.50. (£3510 per year)

[leasky32]

i dont know it was on the money saving expert forum, this person seems to think the 2 years while your on work programme, and the payment of the benefits is taken into consideration, saying that you will be working for the equivalent while getting benefits for those 2 years i don't know where they get this from, but from reading the story it says if you haven't found a job while on the work program you will be forced into this community for for 6 months at 30 hours a week and taking 67 quid for me into consideration that's just over 2 quid a hour

[HannsG]

Where did the £5k per annum come from? A single person under 25 gets £53.45 (£2779.40 per year) per week and a single person over 25 gets £67.50. (£3510 per year)

 

That person was assuming that everyone on JSA also claims other benefits such as housing.

[sillygirl1]

Even with that figure there are people who would still qualify for housing and income support, so its replacing one benefit with another - lets all remember the Latin origin of benefit - bene means good - so it has to be good to help people.

 

Where are these community jobs? I know a lot of people on the local council and they cannot find jobs for their own apprentice intake, let alone these community jobs.

 

I know, there will be a lot more litter sweepers and pooper snoopers privately controlled and there will also be more general snoopers watching our behaviour, not to mention the internet snoopers planned by the DWP to chase up on alleged online applications....