Job seekers should be obliged to work in the community while they are on social welfare payments
I believe people who are on social welfare payments should be made to work in the community in order to continually receive their money every week.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Yes because this will discourage free loaders from taking advantage of the system.
Yes because this will discourage free loaders from taking advantage of the system. Many people that are on the welfare program are not actively seeking employment. If they are required to do community service in order to obtain benefits this will encourage them to seek jobs while on welfare.
While they are doing community service, they are not working for free. They are working for the community and doing jobs that the government or tax payers would have had to pay anyway in order to get done, like cleaning public parks, etc. This sort of work ethic will give taxpayers a more positive outlook on how their tax money is being spent.
There is some confusion here.
Jobseekers' allowance (JSA) is payable only to those actively seeking work; there are no "free loaders" on JSA. This is, therefore, a completely irrelevant argument in favour of the proposition.
On a more technical point, forcing those on welfare to take roles "like cleaning public parks" will do nothing but reduce the number of paying jobs within councils' park services and so on - thus increasing the number of job seekers being forced to do it for free.
The net result will not be a newly reinvigorated legion of unemployed volunteers either transforming neighbourhoods or suddenly filling vacancies that don't exist, but a growing rank of unemployed people as a result of making existing staff redundant and the negative impact to local economies as a result.
It could help people's self-esteem
Studies have shown that mental health problems are higher amongst those who are unemployed and very often those who are unemployed experience anxiety, depression, unhappiness with their lives, negative self-esteem and hopelessness. [[http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl02410.htm]]
Being unemployed can cause people not only to question one's usefulness as a person, but also one's role in society. By working in the community people would be able to perform useful services feeling that they are a valuable member of society even if they cannot find paid employment and reduce the mental health cost of unemployment.
While the negative effects of unemployment on mental health are not in dispute, the use of coercion to countermand them is somewhat disingenuous.
Forcing someone to take on community work places them on the same level as those being forced to take on community work as a result of criminal convictions and sentencing to community work; such action correlates unemployment with criminality and creates a strong negative perception of jobseekers and those on welfare payments.
Such stigmatisation of jobseekers and those on welfare will simply not help with the mental health problems often associated with unemployment.
They have paid taxes in the past so they can receive benefits. They'd be working to get their own money back.
The assumption here is that they are receiving a free handout - they aren't - they will have paid taxes in the past in order to fund welfare.
On top of this they can't find work if they're working for free.
It would become structural - We end up depending on free labour.
If the work needs doing then they should be paid for it properly, just like anyone who does useful social work.
Businesses can arrange this kind of work to be done and profit from it providing new jobs which take people off welfare.
Tax evasion constitutes a far greater drain on the public purse than welfare (£102 Bn per year in the UK). Yet strangely the disempowered are continually attacked for being lazy whilst people with huge wealth (and friends in government) dodge paying tax with little said about it. As a percentage of income some tax evaders pay less tax than your average waitress.
At best there should be the opportunity to do this work, especially if it provides them with training at the same time.
No because they would see this as working for free and would not work to their best ability to get the job done.
No because they would see this as working for free and would not work to their best ability to get the job done. Businesses that specialize in doing work such as park or government property maintenance would lose the opportunity to work and do a better job. Qualifications and standards would decrease and community services would be poorly conducted and would this would not benefit anyone.
No because more people may see this as an employment opportunity without paying the taxes.
No because more people may see this as an employment opportunity without paying the taxes. More people may want to do community service and collect the welfare money at the end of every week as their form of paycheck. This will discourage them from actively seeking jobs.
No because there are people with jobs, that still qualify for welfare because they don’t make a lot of money.
No because there are people with jobs, that still qualify for welfare because they don’t make a lot of money. These people will not have the time to do community service and if they did it would be like they are paying the community twice the worth of welfare because they would be putting their time into community service, as well as paying taxes through their jobs.
Demeaning the idea of community service
People work for the community because they want to. They do this because of the generosity in their hearts, and they do not usually seek any payment for this. What do you think would happen then, if we passed this motion? They would be labelled as cheap workers, working for money and jobless. We are demeaning the very idea of community service and its very purpose; so people can give back what they take from society. Charity or community work should be done because people want to; not because people are forced to by the government. Otherwise, the idea of community service would lose its appeal and a lot of people would become too intimidated at society's labels to risk helping others, and as our society is based around the idea of mutual help and support, if we do this, who knows what would happen?
This has not been thought through
There is everything to be said for offering the unemployed schemes to ensure that they have the right skills to meet local employers needs, and to help them re-enter the job market with subsidised placements for example.
However the current ideas do not seem to be about assisting the unemployed, but more about giving them a "Kicking", just to make sure they are suffering enough.
I have also seen no mention of how these schemes would be financed or organised. I find it difficult to imagine that Local Authorities will see this as much of a priority in the present financial climate
What do you think?