UK Wants Unemployed Youth to Do Unpaid Work for the State. State Sponsored Slavery or.....?

a reply to: andy1972
In reality, I don't know that it will work that way. Regarding kids leaving school, as I said above, why is the government not getting work placement, in a field of interest for that child's career path or at least teaching them skills to broaden their horizons and job scope with companies who MUST provide proper experience for a limited period of time and give them a MINIMUM of 1 year full and proper paid work at the end of it. At least that provides hope for the child since at the end of it all they would have over a year's work experience thus better equiping them for a job in the future should the company not keep them on longer than a year. Of course, if a company has invested in over a year in a person, they would be more likely to keep them on rather than spend money getting rid of them at the end of the contract only to start all over again with a new person a little further down the line. So this system would work for everyone.

At less than £2 an hour and a third of legal minimum wage, it's nothing short of slave labour. Jobs are obviously there, but they doesn't want to pay the fair wages. Is it politicians giving cheap labour to their crony company owners or is it an attempt to save taxpayer £'s usually reserved for their own pockets? Either way, it's extortion.

I wouldn't just bring it in for the young. I would make it compulsory for the fat, lazy, workshy scroungers who sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle and who have no intention of working. They just keep popping out kids and cashing in the cheques.

A pub near us opens at 9:30am to cater for the workshy drunks. Same people everyday. These would be my first target. Picking litter would be too good for them. Plus I would pay them in food vouchers so they can't waste them in the pub.

originally posted by: jude11
Ok, I have to admit that I'm torn on this one.

www.activistpost.com...
www.bbc.com...
David Cameron: "From day one young people must play their part and make an effort." Young people out of work, education or training for six months will have to do unpaid community work to get benefits if the Conservatives win the election.

David Cameron said about 50,000 18 to 21-year-olds would be required to do daily work experience from day one of their claim, alongside job searching.

The welfare shake-up would make sure young people "don't get sucked into a life on welfare", he said in a speech.

I have to approach both sides to be fair.

1. FORCING people to work for the state is state slavery. Period. If you are behind bars we can see a difference of course as it can be seen as a debt to society. Let's not bring in the corporate owned prison-for-profit issue because that's another thread entirely.

But...

2. If you are accepting money from the state because you either can't or won't find work, is it right? I think there are points to be made that if the citizens pay taxes that go into your pocket then you working to benefit said citizens is not all that crazy of an idea. Or am I missing something here? In essence you can be seen as employees of the citizens paying taxes to pay you.

Now to my main problem with it all...

The tone of the article is "STATE SPONSORED SLAVERY" and I do see the underlying issue but if there is a line drawn as to monies taken and labor served as equal, is that slavery?

So I can see what he's talking about but then he shows his true colors by using certain words that lead me to believe all is not what it seems. The term ORDER & DISCIPLINE doesn't sit right with me at all. This sounds like the NWO rearing its ugly head.

'Order and discipline'

[ex[Those aged between 18 and 21 who have not been in employment, education or training, known as "Neets", for six months would no longer receive jobseeker's allowance (JSA). Instead, they would be paid the youth allowance, paid at the same rate as JSA - £57.35 a week. However, to receive it they would be required to carry out 30 hours a week of mandatory community work from the first day of claiming benefits.

This could involve making meals for older people or working for local charities, alongside 10 hours of job hunting.

I wonder how long before the word 'state' is taken out and the words 'private sector' inserted in its place?

I wonder if the word 'state' is just the thin edge of the plan, sorry, i mean, wedge.

I think it would work if it was 20 hors a week, and only in the voluntary sector.
You cant have anybody taking away a job from a real worker who should get minimum wage and give it to someone who's forced to do it for less.
It's just downright immoral.
But you can see the type of people who support it, ignorant people who hate the youth and see them all as lazy scroungers.

the Federal Liberal party (LNP) in Australia is working towards this form of "indentured" work
a.k.a. Slave social caste.
It's not a surprise that the Leader of the LNP here is a British Citizen falsely and illegally serving as Prime Minister, who Refuses to provide the relevant documents to prove he renounced his British Citizenship and blocks FOI demands for the proof.
(Australian Federal Politicians MUST be SOLELY Australian Citizens by Law)
It proves to me that there is an underlying agenda to this oppression of the less fortunate.
We'll see more of this type of thing cropping up in allied countries.
These type of initiatives do not help people, they demoralise and grind them down, they create a sense of worthlessness and inferiority, they do not provide any useful skills that could help an unemployed person into gainful employment, they divide the people into the social caste mindset creating "serfs" indentured workers with no rights. These "solutions" do not provide the safety net that lawfully employed people take for granted either.
I cannot express the level of DISGUST I have for these ideas.

I think the big question is, Why are there 50,000 kids leaving school with very little hope of finding work. ?

Typical Tories, Not only do they steal from the Public purse but they somehow find a way of blaming all of the Uk's woes on the Unemployed, sick and disabled...Hey, it's a vote winner. the sheeeple lap that $#@t up.

3,800 staff employed within DWP trying to stop 1.2 billion in benefit fraud...300 staff employed at HMRC trying to stop 20 billion in tax evasion...??????

Lets face it, He had to change the subject this week given that he and his family are baw deep in tax evasion. And HSBC is about to blow up in his big fat face.

We have had journalists threatened for exposing the HSBC thing. some have the Bollocks to Do the right thing.

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos
a reply to: andy1972
In reality, I don't know that it will work that way. Regarding kids leaving school, as I said above, why is the government not getting work placement, in a field of interest for that child's career path or at least teaching them skills to broaden their horizons and job scope with companies who MUST provide proper experience for a limited period of time and give them a MINIMUM of 1 year full and proper paid work at the end of it. At least that provides hope for the child since at the end of it all they would have over a year's work experience thus better equiping them for a job in the future should the company not keep them on longer than a year. Of course, if a company has invested in over a year in a person, they would be more likely to keep them on rather than spend money getting rid of them at the end of the contract only to start all over again with a new person a little further down the line. So this system would work for everyone.

I absolutely agree. However this scheme, if it ever becomes a reality , should target the workshy fop, the pisshead whos always in the pub, and the chav and immigrant scum who screw the system and have done for years with impunity.

originally posted by: andy1972

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos
a reply to: andy1972
In reality, I don't know that it will work that way. Regarding kids leaving school, as I said above, why is the government not getting work placement, in a field of interest for that child's career path or at least teaching them skills to broaden their horizons and job scope with companies who MUST provide proper experience for a limited period of time and give them a MINIMUM of 1 year full and proper paid work at the end of it. At least that provides hope for the child since at the end of it all they would have over a year's work experience thus better equiping them for a job in the future should the company not keep them on longer than a year. Of course, if a company has invested in over a year in a person, they would be more likely to keep them on rather than spend money getting rid of them at the end of the contract only to start all over again with a new person a little further down the line. So this system would work for everyone.

I absolutely agree. However this scheme, if it ever becomes a reality , should target the workshy fop, the pisshead whos always in the pub, and the chav and immigrant scum who screw the system and have done for years with impunity.

You are talking about Bankers and Politicians here..?

a reply to: nullafides

As long as they pay the people roped into these schemes the minimum wage we are on the same page. Then again chance would be a fine thing indeed. I was really just ranting, I realise we share simular views regarding the subject.

originally posted by: Aspie


A pub near us opens at 9:30am to cater for the workshy drunks. Same people everyday. These would be my first target. Picking litter would be too good for them. Plus I would pay them in food vouchers so they can't waste them in the pub.

Where is this pub that with £70 you can sit in all day everyday... must be the cheapest pint in the Galaxy. or did you just make that up.?

What i dont get is how people can be so incensed by a person living on £72 a week or less.

ya sounds great
that is till the day comes when you show up at work and are given one of these "slaves" to train so they can replace you!!
Even if it's is only in the gov't sector which I am unsure if it is (I've seen "poundland show up on a few posts in this thread.) Are there people doing these jobs now that are living independently without the gov't assistance?

Is it really that great of an idea if for each person who put to work with a reduced or no wage you are putting another who was living independently on the welfare roles??

At least before that one person was paying taxes and adding to the funds!

And what happens if between the immigrants and this program you find that it has cascaded to the point where an overwhelming majority has fallen into dependency and thus servitude?? If you are one of the lucky ones that happen to remain intact are you willing to pay double your taxes to keep the ball rolling?

I get it, some people use the welfare programs so that they can escape the responsibilities of life and it annoys others. But to react to that annoyance in such a way seems to just ensure that the annoyance will just keep growing until it devours use all to the point where all there will be is gov't run by corporations and the peasants who scrouging for the scaps under their lord's tables!!
My advice..Learn to cook the best meals served!! At least the lord's cooks will probably get to taste the food he cooks before it is served!

I'm torn on this one too,

The Government is making the mistake of grouping ALL unemployed into one 'type' when there are in fact a couple of different 'types' of unemployed.

1. People who want to work but cannot find a suitable job and are actively looking for work, attending interviews etc.

2. People who have no intention of working and believe it is their right to live off the state and don't even bother to look for work.

I have no problem with my hard earned taxes providing a temporary helping hand to someone out of work while they do their upmost to get themselves back into work. I do have a problem however, with the workshy, layabouts who sit at home all day (that my taxes help pay the rent for) watching their TV's (that my taxes help pay for) and do NOTHING to find work, and have absolutely no intention of even looking for work, never mind actually working!

How much is JSA?

£57.35 for under 25's
£72.40 for over 25's

I don't agree with the 30 hours work being proposed, but I have no problem at all with the idea that the workshy (type 2) should be made to work and forced to realise that benefits are there to help in times of need, they're nor a lifestyle choice. and being made to work for benefits would certainly make me get off my arse and find work!

I'd simply divide the JSA by the minimum wage and make them work that amount of hours.

Under 25's = 57.35 / 6.50 = 8.82 hours, so 8 hours work per week.
Over 25's = 72.40 / 6.50 = 11.13 hours, so 11 hours work per week.

Another idea could be to make attending college or sixth form aged 16-18 compulsory, don't let kids have to option of leaving school at 16 and doing nothing!

Its not an easy situation to sort out, but it does need sorting out, years of neglect by both Labour and Conservative governments have led to this and the only thing David Cameron has done so far is more or less guaranteed that any unemployed youngster potentially having to work for their benefits isn't going to vote conservative in May (not that they would have anyway)

originally posted by: Tardacus
it`s not slavery if they are getting paid, what do you call it when they collect pay for doing NO work?

I think it`s a great idea put them to work on state owned farms growing their own food to eat.

Yeah put them on the plantations!

/sarcasm.

originally posted by: andy1972

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: jude11

In a country with a supposed minimum wage this is simply illegal.

They should be getting £5.13 or £6.50 per hour depending on there age and even then its quite frankly nowhere near enough to live.

You've got a very good point there! Someone should be fairly compensated for their work....

These people leave school, and without ever having contributed their taxes to the state coffers, they then proceed to live the following years on state benefits, to which they havn't contributed.
They want free money, then let them earn it doing menial tasks for the community.

Im sick of the sponging bastards of the world.

These people dont work, evade working yet expect a free hándout because its their "right".

Its time to give back a little of what the states given.. And now thousands will #ting their beds at the mere thought of having to get up before midday to work.

Way to generalize.

I know many who want to work but cant find work.

All this does is provide cheap slave labour that will take actually jobs away from the community.

originally posted by: andy1972

Those who leave school, dont bother looking for, nor want to work should be those penalised.

and how do you tell the difference between one who simply can not find work and one who is a scrounger?

I've got to put my .02 in, here.


For starters, I think it's a good concept.

Welfare straight up pisses me off. I've seen too many people choosing not to work because they can get enough benefits to be fairly content for free.

Forcing people to work is daft and against everything I believe- but taking a portion of my income by force to give it to someone who chooses not to work is just as bad, if not worse, IMO.

I like the idea that the "government" can make jobs available, at LESS than minimum wage, for people who otherwise cannot get a job. The pay has to remain low- if you can make a good living working for the government, some people will never leave those jobs. Much like how some people simply live off the government now. This is where things get slippery.

We do not want the government to wind up being one of the largest employers in the country. This is bad on so many levels.


It's a pretty scary topic.
I like the concept of there being work available for anyone who shows up at less than minimum wage, and I do not like the concept of stealing my own wages to give to people who chose not to work- so this seems like a natural fit.
However, I do not like the idea of any government employing anyone. Ever.

As soon as the government became a way to make a living, the whole thing went down the drain. Government is simply overhead of managing the people. I think we need significantly less management.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: andy1972

Those who leave school, dont bother looking for, nor want to work should be those penalised.

and how do you tell the difference between one who simply can not find work and one who is a scrounger?

That's what Universal Jobmatch is for. Surveillance, nothing to do with finding anyone a Job as anyone who has ever visited the site will tell you. Another colossal waste of money. My son has been unemployed for 5 months, he has to apply for the same jobs every day or he faces losing his social security. That's the reality of it. it's a scam.
He applies for 40+ jobs a week, not one reply in 5 months.

Job Centre's have a target to meet every week with regards to sanctions. the government wont admit this but that cat has already escaped the bag. The same with ATOS..88% of all claiments on ESA must be rejected.

originally posted by: lordcomac
I've got to put my .02 in, here.




Forcing people to work is daft and against everything I believe- but taking a portion of my income by force to give it to someone who chooses not to work is just as bad, if not worse, IMO.

How much of your income goes towards unemployment benefit.?

a reply to: lordcomac

There's no logic to the answer, the government arent going to create these jobs, they are going to take them away from people who are already employed.
The only sector where this wouldnt happen is the voluntary sector, this is the only place where they could work without stealing a fullwage paying job from somebody.