Benefit Busters: C4, 9pm 20th Aug

[Fedayn]

No it doesn't appear on the 'Welfare' bill, but that's just smoke and mirrors really. As you said, it costs 'em more to pay someone else to look after kids (esp if someone's got more than one) - I suppose that's why the tories never did it.

I don't have anything against the idea of claiming wftc - except for the obv fact it gives employers cheap subsidised labour - but the hounding of lone parents on benefits to, effectively, claim more benefits (no matter where the money is "counted" from) is weird.

It's not weird though. The PSBR budget decreases, good PR, the job less figures drop (though not 1 for 1 as most single parents claim Income Support and as such are not 'unemployed), people have more money to spend which in turn means more goods and services. It makes perfect sense for a government.

 

[Rikbikboo]

Aside all of that surely some people would have to agree the tax credit system is pretty good.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Is that woman's dress, in the trailer, part of the A4E programme: to brainwash the unemployed into accepting the government's bullshit?

Nice bit of promotion for the company, in troubled times, of course. Though maybe channel 4 will take a different view.

 

[nadia]

Aside all of that surely some people would have to agree the tax credit system is pretty good.

Paying people a living wage would be better

 

[foo]

what nadia said.

plus, they continually fuck up peoples' WTC and make the recipients pay it back asap, even thought the fuck up was their fault.

 

[Cloo]

I'm just disturbed by this idea that staying at home with your kids should be a privilege of the better off. Mums who can afford to stay at home without benefits - marvellous. Mums who need benefits to stay at home with their kids - leeches on the state, boo!

 

[beeboo]

It's not weird though. The PSBR budget decreases, good PR, the job less figures drop (though not 1 for 1 as most single parents claim Income Support and as such are not 'unemployed), people have more money to spend which in turn means more goods and services. It makes perfect sense for a government.

Quite. It's perfectly rational - just rather depressing the way that macroeconomic management works it's way down to whether a parent can stay home to look after their kids or not.

I'm just disturbed by this idea that staying at home with your kids should be a privilege of the better off. Mums who can afford to stay at home without benefits - marvellous. Mums who need benefits to stay at home with their kids - leeches on the state, boo!

I don't really think the government is encouraging *any* mums to stay at home. I think there are increasing pressures from government/society for all mums to work. It's just that those who are better off get to exercise their own choice in the matter, rather than be at the mercy of the various financial carrots and sticks of benefits and tax credits. Not that it's fair, but as with many things £ = choice.

 

[ukbix]

I would love to know what consent the claimaints gave to appear on tv..

All I could find out was from a a4e article that stated along the lines of the claimaints new from day one the camera crew would be present, and they all turned up for the classes, then they loved it.

However, surely they *have* to turn up for their classes, or get their benefits sanctioned?

i.e they had no choice in the matter?

Were they given the opportunity to say to channel 4 at the end of filming, hey dont show us on tv?

Second, anyone notice that a show about the welfare reforms, which include the concept of forced labour - ie work for your benefits, in other words no job for x amount of time, and they will make you work for your jobseekers, in effect working for less than 1.50 an hour (cant recall exact amount per hour) - much less than minimum wage, and also covers sick/disabled people being told their is nothing wrong with them etc - is sponsored by VW (Volkswagen)...

read their history page..

here

Some 20,000 forced labourers, prisoners of war, and later also concentration camp prisoners, work at the plant.

In September 1998, in recognition of the events of that time, VOLKSWAGEN AG established a humanitarian fund on behalf of the forced labourers compelled to work at Volkswagen during the Second World War. By the end of 2001 more than 2,050 people in 26 countries had received humanitarian aid from the fund. Furthermore, a Memorial in remembrance of the forced labour employed at the Volkswagenwerk plant is currently being established at Wolfsburg, involving contributions from present-day Volkswagen apprentices.

Seems the type of subject area you would think they would be keen to avoid at all costs, as it would be pretty darn insulting to any victims or relatives/descendants of them to think they are pushing for the same sort of thing to happen again.

OK its not like the government is doing camps, but the principle, work doing what we say, for under the national minimum wage (breaching human rights no doubt) OR lose your benefits and become homeless and starve is remarkably similar surely?

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Those reforms are amongst the most crooked things ever.

Apparently, according to the guy who told me about it (I rarely give much time to SWP wankers but this really made me stop and sign his petition) the government are planning to let companies lay workers off, and then re-employ them for 1.50 an hour under these schemes. It's fucking disgusting.

 

[_angel_]

Those reforms are amongst the most crooked things ever.

Apparently, according to the guy who told me about it (I rarely give much time to SWP wankers but this really made me stop and sign his petition) the government are planning to let companies lay workers off, and then re-employ them for 1.50 an hour under these schemes. It's fucking disgusting.

Jesus. Do they have some actual proof of this, though?

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

I mean it was an SWP type. So he was probably exaggerating. If it's true people ought to be demonstrating about it...

 

[ukbix]

It is bound to happen..

Think of the logistics of it all.

The government will allow private companies to bid to get the unemployed working for them at less than 1.50 an hour (jsa is about 60 quid a week, you should be able to do the math to get an exact figure).

Those companies will then be able to bid for contracts to do work.

Who is a council or company going to employ, a company charging a lot, because they pay their workforce the legal going rate, or the company that can undercut everyone else, because they have slaves working for them?

Company paying going rate gets no work - goes bust, and the employees end up working as a slave a year or so down the road if they dont get re-employed in the mean time.

 

[_angel_]

I mean it was an SWP type. So he was probably exaggerating. If it's true people ought to be demonstrating about it...

The sticking point is that people are supposed to have remained on benefits for two years before they can be used for workfare/ slave labour.

However, I expect that will be revised downwards ASAP by the tories when they get in.

I've no doubt that companies will be queueing up to use free labour provided by the workfare schemes, though.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Company paying going rate gets no work - goes bust, and the employees end up working as a slave a year or so down the road if they dont get re-employed in the mean time.

...and so the cycle continues until everyone is a mandatory voluntary worker unable to apply for proper jobs because they're working full time but not entitled to an actual wage either.

Although it's worth noting that there are already plenty of people working for private companies on slave pay, courtesy of her majesty's prison system. No doubt the companies that benefit from that little scam will be shitting their pants with glee at the thought of a massive increase in the number of available slaves, only this time it's those guilty of nothing more than not having a job in a country where jobs are vanishing faster than unattended cigarettes in a prison canteen.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

It doesn't really make sense either - I haven't come across a case yet where a single parent isn't at least £50p/w better off in work due to tax credits payments, even at 16 hours of work a week - the government has deliberately structured the benefits and tax credits system to achieve this situation. That's not to say that A4E aren't an utter shower of bastards who shouldn't be trusted, nor that I support the current policies to make single parents have to seek work from ever diminishing ages of their youngest child, under threat of financial sanctions from poverty-level benefits.

are they really better off though? I mean when you take into account losing all those other peripheral benefits like free school meals and dentistry and eye stuff?

 

[revol68]

are they really better off though? I mean when you take into account losing all those other peripheral benefits like free school meals and dentistry and eye stuff?

yeah that's a good point and that's before you even mention the benefits of looking after your own kids rather than having some else do it as a job.

 

[Fedayn]

are they really better off though? I mean when you take into account losing all those other peripheral benefits like free school meals and dentistry and eye stuff?

Getting WFTC/CTC also gets you health exemptions such as free prescriptions, free dentistry etc etc

 

[_angel_]

yeah that's a good point and that's before you even mention the benefits of looking after your own kids rather than having some else do it as a job.

Which don't seem to be important!

 

[revol68]

Getting WFTC also gets you health exemptions such as free prescriptions, free dentistry etc etc

really?

So it is basically just a means of using public money to subsidise a low wage economy.

 

[revol68]

Which don't seem to be important!

there's also the less obvious costs of transport to work, having less time to prepare meals and so more of a push towards convenience food.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Still, at least it does mean it's sort of affordable to have kids and work in a lowish paying job, before you had the choice of benefits or not having kids or being well off and having kids.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

BUT in cities like Newcastle, there simply aren't any jobs at the moment, so it's fucking impossible to get off benefits.

 

[ukbix]

...and so the cycle continues until everyone is a mandatory voluntary worker unable to apply for proper jobs because they're working full time but not entitled to an actual wage either.

Although it's worth noting that there are already plenty of people working for private companies on slave pay, courtesy of her majesty's prison system. No doubt the companies that benefit from that little scam will be shitting their pants with glee at the thought of a massive increase in the number of available slaves, only this time it's those guilty of nothing more than not having a job in a country where jobs are vanishing faster than unattended cigarettes in a prison canteen.

Not all will be guilty of not having a job due to lack of jobs.

Part of the welfare reforms, is kicking (1 million with labours current plan, 1.5 million with tory proposed plan) of Incapacity benefit, who are legally / medically unfit to work at present into work by moving the goal post and changing the test so they are now 'suddenly' cured and fine to work.

They will then be unable to get a job, for obvious reasons, not just lack of jobs out there, but they are actually suffering from a medically recognised and proven illness/disease/injury, but according to the DWP they are fine - but realistically which employer will employ someone who has not been working for many years, and still has lots of health issues...

 

[Fedayn]

really?

So it is basically just a means of using public money to subsidise a low wage economy.

It is yes, however it has also allowed mainly working-class women lone parents the ability to work. Short of a legally enforced decent minumum wage or our class taking power it has been a 'positive' reform for many low paid women.

 

[revol68]

It is yes, however it has also allowed mainly working-class women lone parents the ability to work. Short of a legally enforced decent minumum wage or our class taking power it has been a 'positive' reform for many low paid women.

But it isn't a reform, it's a means of increasing the labour pool whilst safeguarding poverty level wages.

On a micro level I'm sure many low paid women have gained from it, but on a macro scale it is just another means of attacking the working class.

Just to add, isn't that how most anti working class measures are pushed through, by giving on one hand and more from the other, much like Thatcher's Right to Buy Scheme, there is no doubt it benefited quite a few working class households but in the final instance it an attack on the working class.

 

[DRINK?]

Interesting given the research showing how much better children fare when looked after by their own parents that the govt is so keen to shove them into childcare.

Is there a lower cut-off age for this I wonder?

this f*cks me off as well....all the problems we see with society etc invariably will be attributed to lack of family, whats the solution pack the mums off to work and leave the kids with someone else..

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

I'm to all intents and purposes a single parent on benefits at the moment, as while my wife can work it's a virtual impossibility for her to find anything meaningful, and it's quite hard for her to support the kid, she isn't entitled to any benefits being on a No Recourse visa, she finds so much stuff here a struggle etc, and I've been applying for jobs, but to no avail, I'd take something even if it paid bog standard wages as with the WTC and Child care tax credit on top it would be a huge boost.

I don't think people understand how grim it can be to be stuck at home in this country with a kid, you need money to do anything, everything's so far away. I'd take a job right now, drop him off to nursery in the mornings, get him in the evening, it's much better for him to be at nursery interacting with other kids and stuff, I'm trying to get my life sorted and entertain him at the same time, it's a total total nightmare.

The government bringing in that side of it is actually fucking good. It means the working but less well off can sort of afford to have children.

it's the workfare reforms I'm a bit more perturbed about - presumably they won't include the opportunity to do something actually interesting in return for your benefit, like get work experience in a decent place, it will probably be really really cack.

 

[weepiper]

I don't think people understand how grim it can be to be stuck at home in this country with a kid, you need money to do anything, everything's so far away.

word.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

and that's now, in the 'summer'.

Mind you, this is the North East.

 

[_angel_]

It's not so much the idea behind wftc that is "bad" enabling people to go out to work is good. It's the forcing people to do it - even when there a) aren't the jobs and b) not enough childcare anyway that is stupid. And some parents for various reasons would rather spend time at home, just as some would rather not.

If there were basically free or very subsidised and easily available childcare, most of the reason for wftc would be lost, and if the minimum wage could be lived on, even more of the need for it would go.