Long-term jobless made to work for benefits - good or bad idea?

About bloody time! I can't believe it took them so long to figure out this is one of the things needed.

TBH I think all people on benefits should automatically be enrolled in some kind of community work, whether that's litter picking, assisting in charity shops or in community centres, maintaining parks, and anything else that would at least help keep our environment clean and tidy to live in, but keeping the job menial enough to inspire them not to want to do it for long. Basically the government should take advantage of cheap labour on this occasion and max it out to the tax payers benefit!

Also, there should be job rotation, as some will still fall into the trap of getting comfortable going out litter picking for their dole money!

This is a current hot topic of debate in the US as well. The problem is many people make more collecting benefits than they would if they did work, add to that all of the "jobs" created under this administration pay minimum wage.

Minimum wage is another hot topic because no one can live on the minimum wage, much less support a family with it.

Seen the various press articles about the number of people queuing up to apply for very ordinary jobs??? There was one in my local paper yesterday - 320 applicants for 10 jobs I think. The problem isn't the jobless not wanting to work - it's the lack of jobs for people wanting them.

The government could help if it wanted to do so by not stopping benefit claims while claimants do the short-term jobs that might possibly lead on to permanent jobs. The benefits could be clawed back slowly, everybody'd win.

At present, someone on benefits can't afford to take a very short-term job (one lasting only a few weeks or a couple of months), even when they hope such a job might lead to something permanent. The reason they can't take the risk is because of the sheer administrative incompetence of DWP.

It takes around 6 - 8 weeks for DWP to reinstate someone on benefits after the short-term work has finished, often longer. During that interval, the claimant has no money to live on - no money for food, rent, energy costs, 'phone, internet, bedroom tax or council tax charge.

Would you risk being totally without money for 8 weeks or longer for the sake of a couple of weeks employment? Especially when the couple of weeks employment would be probably a National Minimum Wage job and require upfront payment of travel costs?

Careers this is exactly what happens here as well. My husband just recently got a job after being unemployed for nearly two years. He worked for four weeks at the college he attends as a part of his internship...he made $300 over the course of a month and they cut all of the benefits we had been receiving off.

Sympathies Layla. I very much hope life is getting easier and better for you and your husband.

I suspect part of our problem in the UK is because few of our politicians have much knowledge or personal experience of life as it's lived by at least 80% their constituents. They'd be better MPs if they'd personally tried to live for weeks on the same benefits or low wages they claim others can survive on.

There must be a business model that can be used to address the benefits issue, that at least gets majority acceptance.

Paying someone money who is fit, healthy and able bodied, no matter how minimum, to remain unemployed just doesn't work. It just fosters this culture of dependence we are now in.

Agree with Linda, why would someone go for a temp job if they know they will lose their benefits. There is no incentive.

It may not be PC to say these days, but personally knowing how a variety of people play and manipulate the system (I've had many a frank chat after been educated on what you can "get"), I'm cynical of some of the more liberal claims of masses of people starving. Maybe scrap the satellite subscription or the weekly Plasma TV payment to put some bread on the table. Sorry, kids meals and clothes come before the family dog(s).

There are and always will be the genuine, which is what the benefits are for. Including those that fall on unexpected hard times, and need a quick helping hand to get them back into employment. Which could be any of us.

But why not work for your benefits? Why not use a labour pool that is getting financed by government for economic advantage? I don't mean slave labour, but genuine minimum wages that people can live on, part financed by govt, and part financed by commerce/industry. This could be for some of the large infrastructure projects we keep hearing about, or breathing life back into our decimated manufacturing base.

Maybe then we would have competitive British car industries etc. Able bodied are back in the work force, learning skills, feeling valued and being a productive member of society. I was always taught growing up it's easier to find a job when you have a job.

Natural achievers will always surface and go onto better things, plodders will continue to plod. Nothing wrong with that, they can spend their paypacket down the pub moaning how rubbish their job is, and keep the barmaid employed.

Increased productivity from a realistically salaried workforce should finance the private sector contribution, locally produced goods lowers the retail price, making the products more affordable for all.

The govts welfare bill is substantially reduced, meaning tax breaks, generating a lower cost of living.

Those unable to work get benefits as they did before, maybe even a lot more to improve their quality of life.

What's not to like? Other than Unions losing their powerbase and liberals having noting to moan about? There has to be a sensible economic argument that is sustainable, affordable and benefits the majority, while protecting the minority?

Any holes in the MLF think tank economic policy, before I submit it?

Thanks Careers! He has actually been working at a new job for about a month and fingers crossed that this one will at least get us through the rest of his schooling.

SJR I don't see any holes in your plan...I know that one or both of us would have been happy to work for the benefits we received while he was unemployed.

Great idea, its a difficult one, but if you read the smallprint (especially JSA) they are only meant to pay it for a period of 6 months, and to get paid all people have to do is do THREE job applications per week!

Even when it comes to benefits by way of credits... My dad works overtime at any opportunity, but some of the lads who work at his place refuse overtime - because if they earn over a certain amount then it affects their benefits!!! This is half the problem, benefits are too high, and thank god we're not just paying them out for nothing now..

Good idea in theory, however A4E, (action for employment) chris graylings flagship employment agency, being a privately owned company has not created any jobs, has not reduced unemployment and it has cost the tax payer millions.

Staff from this company began "inventing" new company's to show they were getting people in to work, those people did not exist nor did the job "but" the tax payer still got the invoice from A4E.

The state must manage the unemployed, there should be a single agenda that shows the individual you can and should earn a living and provide for your family. Regrettably state benefits have become a lifestyle choice for many. I am now working with third generation unemployed, the thought of working is terrifying for some. When asked to see me before 10:30 many often complain because I am being unreasonable.