Should our unemployed be forced to pick fruit?

[poppet2 13]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/16/brexit-vote-brings-uncertainty-for-fruit-pickers-and-farmers

 

Just heard a report on radio 4. Due to the fall in the pound, there are now less seasonal fruit & veg pickers in the UK. I wonder if this will result in the government forcing our unemployed to be seasonal workers in payment for their benefit?

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/16/brexit-vote-brings-uncertainty-for-fruit-pickers-and-farmers

 

Just heard a report on radio 4. Due to the fall in the pound, there are now less seasonal fruit & veg pickers in the UK. I wonder if this will result in the government forcing our unemployed to be seasonal workers in payment for their benefit?

 

 

It would do the unemployed no harm to do a little work for their money. What's not to like about been out in the Countryside breathing nice clean air while picking fruit. (and having a crafty taste of it.) Plus getting brass for doing it. It's a no brainer.

 

Angel1.

Edited December 1, 2016 by ANGELFIRE1

[altus 538]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/16/brexit-vote-brings-uncertainty-for-fruit-pickers-and-farmers

 

Just heard a report on radio 4. Due to the fall in the pound, there are now less seasonal fruit & veg pickers in the UK. I wonder if this will result in the government forcing our unemployed to be seasonal workers in payment for their benefit?

Why do you advocate them doing seasonal work in exchange for benefits rather than for the going rate for that work? If you'd asked "Should our unemployed be forced to take jobs picking fruit or face losing their benefits?" you might have had a point. The way you've phrased it it sounds like you are advocating a lower than minimum wage labour/workfare scheme.

[poppet2 13]

Why do you advocate them doing seasonal work in exchange for benefits rather than for the going rate for that work? If you'd asked "Should our unemployed be forced to take jobs picking fruit or face losing their benefits?" you might have had a point. The way you've phrased it it sounds like you are advocating a lower than minimum wage labour/workfare scheme.

 

But this work would NOT include any additional payment.

This work would be work for their benefit.

This scheme was announced a few years ago, when the unemployed had to work for large corporate supermarkets, but receive no additional payment, not even minimum wage. It was work experience they were forced to undertake.

[Gamston 10]

I think anyone, who is fit to work and has been claiming unemployment benefit for six months, should have to do at least 8 hours a week community service, in return for their benefit.

 

There was a man in his late 80's on the News yesterday, because he placed an advert saying he was looking for a job.

[mikem8634 10]

If there is work to be done it should be paid at the national living wage level at least.

[Bob Arctor 11]

If there is work to be done it should be paid at the national living wage level at least.

 

Totally. Anyone who thinks making people work for benefits is a good idea should first consider whether they could be replaced in their job by such an arrangement.

[Obelix 11]

If there is work available and they don't take it then they lose benefits.

 

Work paid at whatever rate it's offered at, it'll be minimum wage at least you'd expect.

 

Of course this is what we do already - if you turn down work you will get sanctioned or whatever it's called.

[altus 538]

But this work would NOT include any additional payment.

This work would be work for their benefit.

This scheme was announced a few years ago, when the unemployed had to work for large corporate supermarkets, but receive no additional payment, not even minimum wage. It was work experience they were forced to undertake.

So you are advocating a cheap labour scheme. Why not advocate them taking up jobs and being properly employed?

 

The supermarket scheme was widely condemned at the time.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2016 at 17:17 ----------

 

I think anyone, who is fit to work and has been claiming unemployment benefit for six months, should have to do at least 8 hours a week community service, in return for their benefit.

This is about them taking full time temporary jobs. Do you think those people should be paid the going rate for the job or benefits instead?

There was a man in his late 80's on the News yesterday, because he placed an advert saying he was looking for a job.

That's because he was bored at home after his wife died not because he needed the money.

Edited December 1, 2016 by altus
Messed up quoting.

[mikem8634 10]

Totally. Anyone who thinks making people work for benefits is a good idea should first consider whether they could be replaced in their job by such an arrangement.

 

I hadn't thought of that. Excellent point.

[dangerousedd 10]

how would most of the unemployed get there? would they be required to move to take up this 'work'

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

It would do the unemployed no harm to do a little work for their money.

Whether fruit-picking or otherwise, yes.

Benefit payments are funded by taxpayers. It's easy for claimants to forget that.