Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour'

UK Government to bring in forced manual labour

"Long-term benefit claimants could be forced to do compulsory manual labour under proposals being put forward by the government, it has emerged. Under the plan, claimants thought to need 'experience of the habits and routines of working life' could be put on the month long, 30-hour a week placements."

"Mr Duncan Smith said his plans were designed to reduce welfare dependency and make work pay. He said: "One thing we can do is pull people in to do one or two weeks' manual work - turn up at 9am and leave at 5pm, to give people a sense of work, but also when we think they're doing other work.

"The message will go across; play ball or it's going to be difficult."

Full story:
www.bbc.co.uk...


What are your thoughts?

Forced manual labour?

What is your take on this?

Personally i think the idea is ridiculous for various reasons, mainly being the fact that no one should be forced to do anything.

Obviously if they do the right thing and make this charity work and such then it has many benefits, but the other side of the coin is the manual labour side...i.e free labour for the government.

But that's exactly all I can see this being used for, free labour.

What about people who actually cant work?

What about people in areas like mine, rural areas with a specific actual lack of jobs? (Yes, i do work before you ask)

I'm all for getting rid of benefit cheaters and people abusing the state, but forced labour...?

I'm surprised the Condem government has lasted this long to be honest, don't get me started on the university fee increases.

P.S I am a Labour supporter and generally don't agree with much of what comes out of Conservative mouths, and certainly not the Lib Dems who sold themselves out, but i do see the benefits of this but it still doesn't sit quite right to me, knowing that, please focus on the two sides of the coin rather than attacking anyone personally for political views.

Debate away.

reply to post by Concept X


Seems like a good idea to me, as it both discourages welfare and gets people working. It also seems fair; if you are going to accept a government handout, you should have to do something to earn it.

Forced manual labor is exactly that.

Getting welfare benefits and having to work for them is not force.

Just like the cases here in the US where they are thinking of drug testing all people that get welfare. Heck, in my opinion working for the government is a form of welfare, they should drug test everyone in government.

Here is the deal folks, if you are going to TAKE something from the government, do not start to whine when the government begins to put chains on those gifts. That money comes from somewhere, it does not grow on trees, no matter how many times they fire up those printing presses.

reply to post by Concept X


haha! forced? i know people who are out of work, and would love to just do something. and maybe get a qualification out of it to help find a real job.

i have been saying for years and even in a thread on here once about the unemployed, that people who are unemployed should be put straight back to work, there are plenty of things i can see that need doing that could improve communities, gardening for the unable, picking up rubbish, fixing things etc, the list is endless, just go out into your area and see if you can see things the unemployed could do to make your area better and more pleasant to live in. a lot of unemployed people would be grateful if it helps them gain experience and skills to add to their C.V. and they would be helping to put something back into the community un till they find none tax payer funded work.

yes there will be a few that will be 'forced' of that there is no doubt, but to label it as such will damage peoples chances of being employed, as the guy who sits across from the interviewer tells them about the work he/she has been doing just for the employer to have the impression that they were 'forced' even though that person is more than happy to do the work. it would also be a record for an employer of time keeping, effort and personality.

or are they messing up the chance to improve things by creating chain gangs that everybody spits at and calls lazy?

Didn't they have debtor's prisons in Great Britain at one time? Sounds like they're trying to bring it back.

I think people who are receiving welfare (and not on disability, etc.) past a certain amount of time should be doing *something* for what they get. I don't think "forced labor" is the answer for most...people should be in programs to increase their skills, and maybe also doing some kind of physical work part of the time. They also need some time so they can actually look for a job, etc., as well. It's simply not fair to people who are working to have a permanent welfare class. I don't think welfare should be abolished, but beyond a certain amount of time of receiving welfare, its not unreasonable to try to get the recipients to do something productive. In a sense, that's the whole purpose of welfare anyway. You could have people training each other, swapping skills, bartering, learning new skills, and so on...there are lots of ways the long-term welfare system could be set up to help lift people out of the mire.

Notwithstanding the above, a program like this could be abused quite easily. It could become an incentive for any government to actually decrease the amount of "real jobs" available so almost everyone has no choice but to enter the government program, at which point they get worked like slaves for next to nothing, told what to do for a living with no choice, etc. The gains in efficiency and reductions in labor costs could certainly benefit "contractors" making use of dragooned labor at cutrate prices, etc. Its a dark road to go down.

What's the difference between 'forced' or 'loved' labour?

It is still labour, a means to earn a living and sustain oneself, regardless if one is the President of the most powerful nation on Earth or just a humble tea lady.

It is only one's qualitications that enable him/her to progress into higher responsibilities of labour - management.

Unfortunately, the room at the top is limited. Each year see millions of graduates whom had worked hard and should deserve such positions, but there are never enough vacancies to go round for everyone. So what happens if one is qualified but there is no vacany?

He/she can either turn entreprenuer or with their amassed knowledge through discipline, go into other fields. If that is not possible, than the only ones who had profitted were the education centres who sold piped dreams to our children.

Manual labour is the only logical answer, but there should be no stigma attached to labour. It is still an honest living compared to crime. Most critically of all, that salary MUST BE SUSTAINABLE for reasonable living, and not one of slavery of our own citizens while foreigners gets the cream of high wages or unconcionable Coporations profit from mass cheap foreign imported labour at the expense of one's own society.

May such form of imposement be seen in such light, or it would be unfair and cruel treatment of our own fellow citizens and humans forced into slavery.

Originally posted by silent thunder
The gains in efficiency and reductions in labor costs could certainly benefit "contractors" making use of dragooned labor at cutrate prices, etc. Its a dark road to go down.

edit on 11/7/10 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)

Exactly, it is free and easy labour...which also....removes jobs vacancy's from councils and such because they people doing it for free, seems a bit counter productive to me.

I think a better road to go down is getting more people involved in apprenticeships, and training programs and qualifications, not cleaning up leaves off a street or cleaning out drains.

Manual labour doesnt really fix much apart from make local council lives easier, training people up to a level 3 NVQ/University standard would be much better and can incorporate a working week alongside education so they are in the habit of work.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


the difference is how each person is viewed by an employer, we do want them to get jobs don't we? if they are forced the employer thinks they do not want to work at all, if they can volunteer or are put on it after say 6 months for 'training' it could well change a employers view of the person who is applying for that postion they are advertising.

if you cannot see the difference then i really don't know what to say.

reply to post by Concept X


It certainly doesn’t sound good, and it raises all sorts of questions, like…

How long is long term?
If claimants are deemed to need experience of working life, is it only aimed at people who have never worked?
Let’s not forget the retirement age here in the UK, will we have 60 year olds doing manual labour?
I also see a few worrying lines like.

“when we think they're doing other work.”
“The message will go across; play ball or it's going to be difficult.”

I think people on benefits are slowly being demonized by this government.
People are going to be punished for being unemployed when the reality is that there are no jobs available.
Ian Duncan Smith’s “play ball” just about sums this government up.
It’s not some sort of game.

Does anyone really think this will produce anything other than resentment?
Or will lead to any change in the job market?
It will just be cheap forced labour and if anything will reduce the availability of any real jobs.
This plan is not the answer to unemployment or welfare it is just another way of furthering the conservative agenda and sidestepping the real issues.

reply to post by Concept X


In have a few concerns:

First off, I am forced to pay taxes into these social services therefore if I am in need of these social services I don't expect to have to provide forced free labor in order to receive the benefit of my own funds. It's not like we are talking about some philanthropic organization providing free funds for the disenfranchised. These services have already been payed for by our collective labor.

Secondly, I am concerned about the huge conflict of interest that arises when a corporate government gets the authority to force labor in exchange for providing services that individuals have collectively already payed for.

reply to post by lifeform11


Let's face it. NO one loves to work, save the few who are either workaholics or doing a job they love. But unfortunately, such beliefs are unsustainable. EVERY adult needs to work to sustain themselves within a civlised society, or they will only become a liability to others. This form of liablity will only hinder a nation's progress, even if the rest are empathetic and seeks to leave none behind.

You spoke on what the employer thinks. To be fair, he is paying the money and should get fair value. But on the flip side, he is the leader of his trade and company. His role is in MANAGEMENT - giving solutions to problems.

So if a worker is forced and presumed to be unwilling to work - so should he give up and blacklist him or find a solution to motivate him using taught and experienced management techniques to turn him into a productive worker for his firm?

Workers and Employers while having different expectations do have common grounds to achieve aspirations. It's how some great firms have long term loyal employees and some become firms churning mills of labour.

People who advocate forced or compulsory labour should be imprisoned.

reply to post by harvib


there is income based and contribution based, they surely cannot implement this on those on contribution based can they?

its a good idea if done humanly and properly so it cannot be abused, i share some concerns, especially with the way the b.b.c label it, it sounds more like chain gang type of forced labour. but if it was there for everyone who are out of work to volunteer for, and anybody who goes off contribution based to income based was then put onto work focused training and was only made to work for minimum wage for an amount of hours that covers their benefits, with the chance to pass a course gain a qualification and work experience to further help with their chances of employment, then i think it is a good idea.

however i do think some in this thread are right about the dangers. it just depends which way they want it.

originally posted bySeekerofTruth101

Manual labour is the only logical answer, but there should be no stigma attached to labour. It is still an honest living compared to crime. Most critically of all, that salary MUST BE SUSTAINABLE for reasonable living, and not one of slavery of our own citizens while foreigners gets the cream of high wages or unconcionable Coporations profit from mass cheap foreign imported labour at the expense of one's own society.

Maybe this is the reason Obama made his trip to India...Americans will be put into forced labour camps(FEMA)

under the excuse that a sustainable work wage can't be paid...Smacks self in forehead with palm....why not outsource newly trained Americans AND their jobs to India, trade person for person instead of just the jobs.

It is cheaper to live in India than the US...it would be a way to create overseas jobs for Americans, and I'm sure they would still be responsible for taxes "back home"...and of course, after a service time in India, those that come home could always use what they learned overseas to become trainers to others on welfare. Well, whoop te dooo....maybe I just came up with the Mother Lode....

NOT!!

Forced Labour in the US would definitely be a final nail in the coffin...If Americans stood for that...then it's done.

Edit to add: ARBEIT MACHT FREI....we all know who the origional author for those words was....

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
It also seems fair; if you are going to accept a government handout, you should have to do something to earn it.

Don't you think that the Government should provide money so that people can have their basic human rights like food, water and shelter? Why should we have to work for these?

If you want luxuries like a big plasma TV, by all means you should work for it.

If you have to work for what is accepted as human rights, then you are a slave.

If a farmer did this to his animals, he would be in big trouble. Don't see why it should be any different for TPTB.

One problem well a major problem, would you let someone work for you if they dont want to be there? Also I know for a fact community work is laughable. Unless you are actually commited then community work works, however you get someone who has been forced to do something well dont expect the job to get done or done very poorly. As long as they turn up they dont care. Another knee jerk reaction from a dumb government.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
It also seems fair; if you are going to accept a government handout, you should have to do something to earn it.

Don't you think that the Government should provide money so that people can have their basic human rights like food, water and shelter? Why should we have to work for these?

You do not have a right to my take property, drink my water or use my shelter.

You might think you do - but that is your delusion, not mine.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


"..they should drug test everyone in government".
I am in the military which is a government job and therefore a form of welfare according to you. They just so happen to drug test us. For almost 20 years I have passed all the drug tests but hey, why not? That gigantic paycheck is too sweet to pass up for having to do nothing but get shot at.

I can tell you in those 20 years I have seen more and more government jobs go to the private sector in the form of civilian contractors. If you think some of the government workers were welfare recipients, buddy, you have no clue. As far as I can tell those were not government workers who precipitated the housing collapse. It was not government workers who sent millions of manufacturing jobs overseas because they can make more profit and not because of insignificant EPA regulations or a weak union. It was not government workers who came crying to Congress for trillions in bailout funds.

Yeah sure, the folks at the DMV need a boot up their a** to become more productive. However, get your eyes on where the problem really is versus taking ill informed, penny ante pot shots at some schmuck at the Post Office sending your junk across the country for less than a buck.