Referendums Options

[Iommi]

Maybe you should be made decision maker in who swings or not?

I would, but it upsets the girlfriend.

[GMR]

I would, but it upsets the girlfriend.

I know where you are coming from...

[blackdog]

4. Should people on long term benefits who have no medical condition be made to do voluntary work to keep the right to have their benefits?

If you force someone to do it is it voluntary work?

How do you ensure that the work they are forced to do is not putting someone else out of work?

[Sarah]

If you force someone to do it is it voluntary work?

How do you ensure that the work they are forced to do is not putting someone else out of work?

I don't think voluntary work is paid, so the unemployed doing it, isn't depriving someone else of a living.

I would think that those who are genuinely unemployed (as in can't get a job, rather than don't want a job) would be happy enough to take on some sort of voluntary work, it must be mind numbingly boring to be stuck at home all day.

[user23]

If you force someone to do it is it voluntary work?

How do you ensure that the work they are forced to do is not putting someone else out of work?

I've always thought along the same lines. If you force criminals to do "voluntary" work, how are those who freely give up their free time to help the community going to feel? That the good work they do is so worthless as it is used as punishment for some.

[Strafin]

I've always thought along the same lines. If you force criminals to do "voluntary" work, how are those who freely give up their free time to help the community going to feel? That the good work they do is so worthless as it is used as punishment for some.

I would have thought they'd be glad of the help. What sort of help would it be though? If someone didn't want to be doing it, they could be lazy, difficult and obstructive. Like hiring a teenager! It could lead to people getting more involved though where they wouldn't have before, and also help people because they wouldn't have massive blank spots on their CV.

[Iommi]

That the good work they do is so worthless as it is used as punishment for some.

Punishment, where the h*ll did that come from? For most, being unemployed is punishment enough.

Employing the unemployed, suggests there's jobs available. I'm not sure how good the quality of work would be from casual labour, like from unemployed, would be either.

[GMR]

I don't think voluntary work is paid, so the unemployed doing it, isn't depriving someone else of a living.

I would think that those who are genuinely unemployed (as in can't get a job, rather than don't want a job) would be happy enough to take on some sort of voluntary work, it must be mind numbingly boring to be stuck at home all day.

Actually that is not true. A recent trial - I say recent but a few years ago - got unemployed people to do certain jobs like cleaning, picking up litter etc. Just after that the council had to lay off workers who did actually do that work. Even getting convicts to do community service has deprived others their livelihood. Remember; those things have been tried before and that is the reason they are still not being used today.

[GMR]

Punishment, where the h*ll did that come from? For most, being unemployed is punishment enough.

Employing the unemployed, suggests there's jobs available. I'm not sure how good the quality of work would be from casual labour, like from unemployed, would be either.

Good reply. There are people who don't want to work, but I think that is a very small minority. The majority of people want to work.

[Sarah]

Actually that is not true. A recent trial - I say recent but a few years ago - got unemployed people to do certain jobs like cleaning, picking up litter etc. Just after that the council had to lay off workers who did actually do that work. Even getting convicts to do community service has deprived others their livelihood. Remember; those things have been tried before and that is the reason they are still not being used today.

You sem to be missing the point that we are talking of voluntary work here, just as User is missing the point that we are talking of the unemployed not criminals.

[GMR]

You sem to be missing the point that we are talking of voluntary work here, just as User is missing the point that we are talking of the unemployed not criminals.

I am not missing the point and the example I gave was a voluntary one. 'Voluntary' for the employed person or whoever is doing it voluntary, but it wasn't for the person who was employed to pick up rubbish by the council or other such jobs.

[Sarah]

I am not missing the point and the example I gave was a voluntary one. 'Voluntary' for the employed person or whoever is doing it voluntary, but it wasn't for the person who was employed to pick up rubbish by the council or other such jobs.

Obviously your definition of volantary work is different to mine.

I would expect that any scheme that encouraged the unemployed to work for their benefit, would be looking at unpaid help in the community, not replacing council workers etc.

I think this would be a positive move, and possibly give the unemployed a chance to gain more experience.

[GMR]

Obviously your definition of volantary work is different to mine.

I would expect that any scheme that encouraged the unemployed to work for their benefit, would be looking at unpaid help in the community, not replacing council workers etc.

I think this would be a positive move, and possibly give the unemployed a chance to gain more experience.

Sorry... that is not my 'definition'. I quoted what happened. The unemployed were doing 'voluntary' work - by the job-centres 'definition' - which deprived or forced - workers to be made redundant from the council. There has been many arguments on exactly this topic between the government - what they want to happen - and the Unions, which they don't want.

I know exactly what you are saying, but can only repeat what happened. Whoever is right or wrong i do agree with what you said about giving the unemployed experience. According to the Conservatives they will actually do that when they get into power. So it doesn't make any difference about the interpretation of 'voluntary' or whether it effects jobs, just that it will happen under a conservative government.

[Strafin]

Obviously your definition of volantary work is different to mine.

I would expect that any scheme that encouraged the unemployed to work for their benefit, would be looking at unpaid help in the community, not replacing council workers etc.

I think this would be a positive move, and possibly give the unemployed a chance to gain more experience.

I agree with you Sarah. People would also be able to learn new skills if they were painting churches, community halls and ld ladies fences for example.

[GMR]

I agree with you Sarah. People would also be able to learn new skills if they were painting churches, community halls and ld ladies fences for example.

Oh, I also think it is a good idea as I have said.

[Sarah]

I know quite a few men who don't know one end of a paintbrush from the another.

[JeffG]

Sorry... that is not my 'definition'. I quoted what happened. The unemployed were doing 'voluntary' work - by the job-centres 'definition' - which deprived or forced - workers to be made redundant from the council. There has been many arguments on exactly this topic between the government - what they want to happen - and the Unions, which they don't want.

So are you suggesting that the long-term unemployed should not be made to do unpaid community work in return for keeping their benefits, just in case a council employee might possibly be laid off because of it?

Should we be paying twice for the same thing?

[Iommi]

I think work for benefit sounds great in theory, but I think in practice it would be hard to administer and make pay for itself. Insurance is the first thing that springs to mind. There's also the minimum wage directive.

[GMR]

So are you suggesting that the long-term unemployed should not be made to do unpaid community work in return for keeping their benefits, just in case a council employee might possibly be laid off because of it?

Should we be paying twice for the same thing?

I am not stating that at all.... in fact I think it is a good idea. I am just saying what I know (i.e. read), not what I think.

[GMR]

I think work for benefit sounds great in theory, but I think in practice it would be hard to administer and make pay for itself. Insurance is the first thing that springs to mind. There's also the minimum wage directive.

I agree with you and it would be hard to administer. As I said; it has been tried before and because of opposition from the unions etc it failed.