Two issues:
1) The nature of the job. Once you class a job as a punishment (and if it's compulsory and done by those labelled as feckless, it will be labelled as a punishment), then you demean that job. Road sweeper: you've done something wrong.
2) The phrase in the papers: "Alcoholics, drug addicts and the mentally ill will be forced into a 'mandatory intensive regime' to rebuild their lives." Ooh. Alcoholism is a disease: will other groups be forced into this? Smokers with lung illnesses? But worst :the mentally ill are seen as to be punished if they cannot help themselves!

The vast majority are getting paid what they have paid into, its called the National Insurance. Would you work for 30 hours a week for £71? No I expect, so why expect people who aren't in work to?

How are they supposed to look for work if they have to work 30 hours a week, how are they supposed to turn up for job interview after job interview if they have to "work"??? Why would someone who has been in managerial roles who just happens to be the wrong side of 60 and can't find employment be expected to clean graffitti and sweep street, yeah that will give them real incentive to get off their backside and find a "work ethic".

And if theres a job for 30 hours a week, pay them the minimum wage for a 30 hour week, with the employee paying NI and Income Tax and give them sick pay and holiday pay. I'm sure we have a law in this country that says anyone in employment has to be paid the minimum wage and if they're not its against the law.

You also have another problem that hasn't been thought out by this inept government. There are real people, who are paid real wages to sweep the roads, clean graffitti, cook for the elderly. Will they all have to be sacked, claim JSA for 3 years then go back to doing the job they were doing for £71 a week? Care homes who are in it to make as much money as possible, will quietly "let go" their chefs etc and remember this government has got rid of legal aid and made it virtually impossible for anyone to go to employment tribunal, and "employ" people on JSA for nothing. I know whose laughing all the way to the banks about this one, and its not the JSA claimants!!

The logical outcome of 'care in the community'?

The Nazis thought that the mentally ill and disabled needed dealing with too.

Quote ="Saddened!" But there is an awful lot of people who see unemployment benefits as a birthright they need do nothing in return for. '" No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths [i The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people[/i

Quote ="Saddened!" But there is an awful lot of people who see unemployment benefits as a birthright they need do nothing in return for. '" No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths [i The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people[/i

If these jobs are available and need to be done, there should be a wage paid for doing them. Wage does not equal benefits.

It's called getting stuff done on the cheap.

Quote ="Hull White Star"No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths [i The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people[/i'" The foundation didn't even find the 'three generations without work' – hence the "if they exist". The found families where there had been periods out of work – as well as in work – across generations, but not the sweeping idea that IDS had suggested. But much of the media prefers the fantasy and hence the public believes it to be true. In the case of Mick Philpott, for instance, the [iMail[/i portrayed his crimes as evidence of what living on benefits does – even though both the women in his life worked. It's a grand case of not allowing the reality to get in the way of the propaganda or of anything that might actually tackle the real problems that do exist.

Quote ="Hull White Star"No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths [i The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people[/i'" The foundation didn't even find the 'three generations without work' – hence the "if they exist". The found families where there had been periods out of work – as well as in work – across generations, but not the sweeping idea that IDS had suggested. But much of the media prefers the fantasy and hence the public believes it to be true. In the case of Mick Philpott, for instance, the [iMail[/i portrayed his crimes as evidence of what living on benefits does – even though both the women in his life worked. It's a grand case of not allowing the reality to get in the way of the propaganda or of anything that might actually tackle the real problems that do exist.

O/T but Sky News this morning had a reporter and crew outside his old house as the place was demolished. The infinite facepalm picture sprang to mind. I hope the BBC haven't sent anyone to report it

Since they couldn't get anyone to report yesterday's demo of 50,000 in Manchester – or were barred from it by G4S ...

It's very easy to argue with it if you give it just a moments consideration.

In New York they implemented a similar policy and got the unemployed to work on the parks. The net result was the parks staff employed by the city lost their jobs. The were replaced by the cheap labour the city now had available to it.

That is one kind of side side effect. How would you suggest we avoid a similar outcome here? I mean if we get the unemployed cleaning chewing gum of the streets or picking up litter there really is no need to pay someone a full time wage to do the same is there?

You also seem to be ignoring the fact there aren't any jobs to go to. The number of vacancies is far less than the number of unemployed so what is to be done? If the government can create jobs out of thin air for these people why can't it pay them a proper wage to do it? In a weak labour market such as we have now this scheme will do absolutely nothing to find these people proper paid employment so the only conclusion is that it is some kind of punishment for daring to be unemployed.

If your community projects require labour then they need to be paid a wage for doing it otherwise they simply undercut paid employees resulting who would normally do it being made redundant as well. We can either afford these projects or we can't. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest we can get them done using slave labour which is what your really suggesting even if you think you are not.

If you look and do some research there is plenty of evidence out there that such schemes are counter productive and actually encourages employers to avoid anyone who has been these schemes as it stigmatises those on them.

Finally the maximum community sentence that a judge can hand out is for 300 hours, but claimants on six-month workfare schemes are already being forced to work without pay for 780 hours. The four-week Mandatory Work Activity scheme is already the equivalent of a medium level community service order that a person might receive if they were found guilty of drink driving or assault. In other words being long term unemployed gets you treated as a criminal. What a fantastic country we live in!

Yet they could report on the two Ex Service men who stood up to Philip Hammond but no word on the the NHS demo, crazy, crazy world of reporting.

There is an excellent comment in the Guardian as to why this proposal is basically imorral

[urlhttp://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/27479082[/url

In case the link doesn't work it says this:

[iWhere's your 'morality' in making someone in their 50s, made redundant 2 years ago because of the financial crash, having worked since they were 16, being made to do workfare because employers are loathe to take on older people? Someone in their 50s, having worked since they were 16, paid in all those years, did the 'right thing' and now told they have to clean graffiti to 'earn' the paltry amount they're given on JSA/UC?

Where's your 'morality' when, as with existing workfare programs attached to retail workfare providers, people in paid jobs lose hours/shifts/over time and even jobs, because employers know they don't have to employ people any more than they have to because of now endless conveyor belt of exploited labour from the Job? First it was retail, now it's carers (the people paid to make old people's meals &c) and now it's council staff paid to collect litter and clean graffiti.

Many prisons are already allocated small industry jobs for prisoners. So you now have retail, care work, manual cleaning &c, and light industrial jobs going to people who aren't in proper employment. Yet you can't see the pattern? The overall picture?

PRO-TIP: there's no dignity in working a full time job, under the threat of a random sanction, for £71 a week.[/i


There is also another comment immediately below it which is one of the best put downs for those who claim to be left leaning but can see no problem with this policy.

[urlhttp://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/27479519[/url

Again, here is the text in case the link doesn't work.

[iOnce more your points are hypothetical & therefore irrelevant to the brutalism of the objective situation. The ordained proposal-to-policy is 30 hours a week of unpaid 'community work', accompanied by circa a further 10 hours a week of evidenced job hunting. Failure to fulfil will result in immediate & summary suspension of subsistence level social security net payments, which will lead to rapid destitution for people who are already severely impoverished.

The majority of people longer term unemployed have been prior employed - prior, that is, to the mosts extensive & catastrophic economic downturn since the 1930's. So the contribution of many has been made - via taxation & NI payments. You're perhaps unaffected - not everyone directly has been. Many have, through no direct fault or failing on their own part - & have been catastrophically affected in numerous cases.

You say you are 'left-wing'. I'd consider you to be no other than petite bourgeoisie, according to the standard definition:

"Petite bourgeoisie (French pronunciation: ​[pətit buʁʒwazi), also petty bourgeoisie (literally small bourgeoisie), is a French term (sometimes derogatory) referring to a social class comprising semi-autonomous peasantry and small-scale merchants whose politico-economic ideological stance is determined by reflecting that of a haute (high) bourgeoisie, with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself, and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate.

The term is politico-economic, and references historical materialism. It originally denoted a sub-stratum of the middle classes in the 18th and early-19th centuries. In the mid-19th century, the pre-eminient theorist of socio-politico-economy, Karl Marx, and other Marxist theorists used the term petite bourgeoisie to identify the socio-economic stratum of the bourgeoisie that comprised small-scale capitalists such as shop-keepers and workers who manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers."

Osborne & associated scum will be well happy to encounter & to continue to control your kind of non-existent 'left-wing'.[/i

Two of the best comments I have ever seen in relation to why this policy is totally wrong.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-24329092BBC story online[/url, on the front page. So of national importance.

Rather than a peaceful demonstration of 50,000-plus from across the UK, about a national subject, organised by a national organisation, in front of a national political party's national conference.

We're all going to hell in a hand cart

Aye.

Well – the fourth estate pretty much has.

A guy on radio said that as things stand he is left with around £16 a week for food, the bus fares to the job centre will be about £4.20 a day (£21 a week), which means after about a week he will collapse from starvation, or sooner if he has to physically work for 30 hours with no money for food left.

Well at least it gets the blue rinse brigade clapping and cheering.

I don't know why as they'll be next. Hasn't one numpty tory already said somewhere that pensioners should work for their pensions?

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20044862Community work, dear: community work[/url.

I can see how that is, on the face of it, a tempting idea.
Why should anyone be paid for doing nothing?
But when you look deeper, if someone is doing work, shouldn't they at least be paid the minimum wage?

Either way, this government is keener on sacking public employees than creating new public sector jobs, so we won't see that kind of community work for the unemployed.
Gideon and IDS would far rather donate that workfare time to some already highly-profitable conglomerate who probably shifts their profits overseas.
I can't decide whether they are very stupid or very shifty.

Because they are not in work. They are doing it to earn a handout. We can't have people choosing this as a career path, it should always less favourable than actually working. For a lot of people it would be a good thing, it would give them the discipline to hold down a working routine, which is why a lot of people end up in and out of work. It would also give a sense of purpose for those who are indefinitely trapped in the cycle of unemployment. It could also be put into place that all council vacancies were sourced from this pool, the highest achievers being given proper jobs. If they want proper pay, they can try to get a proper job or just not do it(See below).

Having read further into this, it's all a non-issue anyway, as there is apparently a choice between doing the work, attending an education programme (Easier to sit in a classroom than do manual labour) or attend the job centre daily. Most of the drop outs they are trying to target would naturally choose option 2 or 3.

As everyone on here is against this, what would your suggestion be to stop it happening? Do we just let people who choose life on benefits do that indefinitely? Really? The Government here is clearly trying to target those who choose not to work, rather than those who are just cannot find work. For all the claims on here that those people don't exist, they clearly do and in great numbers.

How many jobs are available for all these nasty unemployed?

Significantly more than many are led to believe - the immigrants from eastern europe don't seem to have an issues!! You go to any casual labour agency and see who is knocking their doors down to get some work?

No one objects to the genuine unemployed but it those who have no intention of ever trying to find work that man find frustrating.

The even bigger irony came from Theresa May who apparently wants to put an end to people being exploited so I heard on the news on the way home. She will be having Gideon and IDS arrested then?

Okay. Please provide evidence that the official unemployed v jobs available figure is wrong.

Then you can consider the issue of pay for the job – and please remember that research suggests that the government's fantasy over the long-term unemployed not wanting a job doesn't hold up.

Good post.