Get the Unemployed to do unpaid Community Work

TarfHead said:
Ditto. The activity in our area was prompted by a US woman who got tired of the state of the common areas and had enough 'get up and go' about her to mobilise others who felt the same, but whose innate inertia was stronger.
Click to expand...

The Americans are brilliant at that sort of thing.
 
Purple said:
Where I live we have a residents association who pays to have the common areas looked after.
Click to expand...

Where I live, Fingal County Council look after the maintenance of common areas.

This year, they announced that they would be allowing specified common areas to grow wild to foster the development of 'meadow plants'. Those areas are now a haven for dandelions, with the council trimming the edges and, in some cases, cutting a path through the middle.

Whatever about the intention, it looks terrible and is viewed as a weak attempt to make a virtue out of saving money through not continuing with their responsibilities.

Fortunately, an effective lobby campaign has succeeded, and the Council have reversed the decision.
 
Why don’t the locals get out and look after their own common areas?
If they were it would be less likely that they would be vandalised.
 
To go back to the original topic - during the boom years when I knew of several perfectly healthy fit people sitting back and claiming unemployment benefit, I would certainly have agreed they should have been made get up off their lazy a*ses and do something for the community.
But nowadays we have thousands of people who have worked hard, paid their stamps and been let go from their jobs totally against their will. I really don't think it would be fair to add to their misery by forcing them to go out and do menial jobs to 'earn' their benefit. Many of them will, of course, seek voluntary work themselves in order to do something with their time. But they will probably volunteer for something they feel will give them some satisfaction, or an area where their skills might be useful.
 
liaconn said:
To go back to the original topic - during the boom years when I knew of several perfectly healthy fit people sitting back and claiming unemployment benefit, I would certainly have agreed they should have been made get up off their lazy a*ses and do something for the community.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with this solution, even in the boom times. If people are abusing the welfare system by avoiding work when work is available, then cut them off, within the appropriate terms and conditions. If there is work to be done, then give people the dignity of a job and a living wage.
 
Complainer said:
I would disagree with this solution, even in the boom times. If people are abusing the welfare system by avoiding work when work is available, then cut them off, within the appropriate terms and conditions. If there is work to be done, then give people the dignity of a job and a living wage.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree.
 
Complainer said:
I would disagree with this solution, even in the boom times. If people are abusing the welfare system by avoiding work when work is available, then cut them off, within the appropriate terms and conditions. If there is work to be done, then give people the dignity of a job and a living wage.
Click to expand...

Almost a +1 for me too.. but this implies that there is money in the kitty for this and our national debt should remain in tact. Sorry :eek:
 
Firefly said:
but this implies that there is money in the kitty for this and our national debt should remain in tact. Sorry :eek:
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the reality, but;

- there is some money in the kitty, because it is being used to pay SW to these folk
- most of the money paid out will 'recycle', and will generate some tax income (VAT, spends on basic services etc). This is the arguement used to justify the new supports being given to employers.
 
I would disagree with this solution, even in the boom times. If people are abusing the welfare system by avoiding work when work is available, then cut them off, within the appropriate terms and conditions. If there is work to be done, then give people the dignity of a job and a living wage.
Click to expand...

Here, here well said
 
Complainer said:
Yes, this is the reality, but;

- there is some money in the kitty, because it is being used to pay SW to these folk
- most of the money paid out will 'recycle', and will generate some tax income (VAT, spends on basic services etc). This is the arguement used to justify the new supports being given to employers.
Click to expand...

I agree but there needs to be a balance. Regarding unemployment (and maybe this is one for the great financial debates), I believe that some unemployment (3-5%) is actually a good thing as it creates competition at the bottom that works its way up.
 
Firefly said:
I believe that some unemployment (3-5%) is actually a good thing as it creates competition at the bottom that works its way up.
Click to expand...
Yes, it increases mobility and keeps wage inflation down. Very important in an open export focused economy like ours.
 
Firefly said:
I agree but there needs to be a balance. Regarding unemployment (and maybe this is one for the great financial debates), I believe that some unemployment (3-5%) is actually a good thing as it creates competition at the bottom that works its way up.
Click to expand...
Has any developed economy EVER had full employment?
 
Yes Callybags, a nasty and bitter post from me. But, unfortunately it is the truth.And if I caused offence, well tough!
 
This idea of unemployed people doing community work will only apply to less educated people. People with qualifications can refuse this type of work because they have a degree or whatever.That is in the social welfare regulations.
I however am in favour of the idea,but we must have fairness and common sense.
For example we have the teachers and their unions complaining about large class sizes.At the same time we have a large number of unemployed teachers looking for a teaching job.Surely it would not be too hard to put the unemployed teachers working for even 2 to 3 days a week in the schools for their dole money or a bit more.The existing teachers unlike the aforementioned painters would not suffer a cut in their pay or hours, yet of course they would oppose this measure tooth and nail showing up their hypocritical concerns about large class sizes.
This could be replicated across the health services as well and many other areas.
We really need the government to get the finger out and implement this measure wherever possible.
I am not suggesting any coercion in making people who don`t want to work,go to work.But with 400k + people unemployed, ther are many young qualified people keen to work. Even 25% would be 100,000 eager workers.
 
sunrock said:
This idea of unemployed people doing community work will only apply to less educated people. People with qualifications can refuse this type of work because they have a degree or whatever.That is in the social welfare regulations.
I however am in favour of the idea,but we must have fairness and common sense.
Click to expand...
If the people with degrees can't get a job they shouldn't be treated any differently from those who don't as their degree is of no use in the job market.
 
liaconn said:
To go back to the original topic - during the boom years when I knew of several perfectly healthy fit people sitting back and claiming unemployment benefit, I would certainly have agreed they should have been made get up off their lazy a*ses and do something for the community.
But nowadays we have thousands of people who have worked hard, paid their stamps and been let go from their jobs totally against their will. I really don't think it would be fair to add to their misery by forcing them to go out and do menial jobs to 'earn' their benefit. Many of them will, of course, seek voluntary work themselves in order to do something with their time. But they will probably volunteer for something they feel will give them some satisfaction, or an area where their skills might be useful.
Click to expand...

But that could easily be addressed as I am sure they would not need every single unemployed person in Ireland to help, so why not start with those longest on the dole? Thsi way it will not hit those who were busy workign over the last few years, and it will also catch those who were unemployed while this country was booming and there was loads of jobs for all.

If you are fit and healthy and able to work, and have been unemployed for say 5 years, then you are just a work-shy layabout (imho).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top