Might be good in theory but given that it would probably be a political decision to switch from one to the other I don't think it would work.
What do you have in mind specifically? For example how would you vary the existing qualification criteria?It occurred to me there that perhaps we should have a more flexible social welfare system, so that if the economy is in full employment then the criteria for receiving welfare is tougher than when unemployment is high. When the economy isn't in full employment the criteria are relaxed.
What do other posters think?
You could reduce the amount of time you can claim, which I believe is 15 months at the moment - correct? In reality in full employment it shouldn't take that long to get a job. Perhaps a longer commute would be necessary, or a job which isn't ideal might need to be taken as an interim measure.What do you have in mind specifically? For example how would you vary the existing qualification criteria?
It sounds more vindictive than economically useful. Why bother trying to shorten jobseeker queues at full employment when by definition they're as short as they can get?
Shouldn't we always try to shorten jobseeker queues, assuming that most people would like to work? Just going on a suggestion purple made in another forum - that we should seek to help unemployed people (talking about long term unemployed here, or families where generations have been unemployed -not those who are ill) by incentivising work and providing training etc. - rather than making the unemployed more comfortable in their unemployed position. Nothing vindictive there. Just a topic for debate.
Can you explain your comment that the taxpayer "gives alibis to drug dealers"?Meanwhile, the taxpayer subsidises non-English speaking people on the dole (they should have to speak the language in order to get paid state money, IMO), gives alibis to drug dealers, pays money to eighteen year olds who haven't a clue what they want to do other than "hang out" and generally feeds the unemployable population without questioning why they are unemployable.
Can you explain your comment that the taxpayer "gives alibis to drug dealers"?
Why should someone have to speak English in order to get state money?
There's far too much PC pussyfooting around on this subject.
I agree with the majority of comments regarding the metaphorical kick up the backside that people need to 'incentivise' them to go and do something for the money they get handed every week.
Community work is a good one, clean graffiti/streets/public buildings etc... You don't need a good grasp of the language to know how to do that.
However, that kind of a political decision is unlikely to be made due to the outcry that is inevitable (discriminatory, racist, anti-family etc.etc.etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?