Work for your dole?

Tea drinker

Can we implement a system of manadatory work in order to claim dole?
I'm not suggesting this through any "jealousy" or aggrivedness(?) on my part. I don't intend this to discourage people from drawing the dole, but to encourage them to work. I feel that long term dole recipients have problems/fears or habits that are difficult to break:

1. fear of going back to work.
after long period of unemployment going back to work would be an unkown and would cause "performance anxiety"
2. Mental health
Long term sedantory behaviour, lack of variety or interests, inability to express yourself through lack of money etc are all bad for the brain and cause bad habits as people learn how to deal with their situation.
3. Physical health.
Excercise good, moving around in work good. Sitting on couch bad.

I think that a certain number of mandatory days work would help in all these regards. The scheme would be flexible and people could elect for the days they want to work (within the availability of the scheme.)
The work would have physical element and they would work alongside experienced full time staff.
I'm thinking factory work, Council work like cleaning their own area, agriculture / forestry etc. Obviously more roles would be needed to suit everyone. And short term this would cost MORE, long term it would get people more healthy and probably more productive. It could also foster a work ethic in deprived areas or deprived families who no longer know how to "engage" in work environment, and also build community spirit.

who's yer one?

Factory work- most of em require you to have a safe pass (which has a mother of a waiting list last i checked) and i can't see the councils taking on anyone without 10 million years experience in whatever field they're looking to get into (from my experience, anyway) the ones they don't, they use fas course people. (example, parks dept have fas horticultural students diggin holes, plating flowers, etc in parks)
most people on the dole Want to work. ive been unemployed ridiculously long, to the point ive been applying for cleaning jobs to be told im unsuitable to mop a friggin' floor.
i don't think it needs jobs to be invented for dolemonkeys to keep us busy, i think real, decent-paying jobs need to give us a chance, instead of needing a min 2yrs experince for everything, have trial periods n see how you get on(its so friggin frustrating to see a job advertised that i know i can do with my eyes closed, but since im not already doing that job somewhere else, they won;t look at me).

BlaasForRafa

What you seem to be saying is specifically create jobs to force people from the dole to work. These jobs would need to pay at least the minimum wage which is a lot higher than the cost of the dole.

Also if these jobs were really necessary then they would already exist and be filled. So in effect you'd be creating unnecessary jobs that tax-payers would have to subsidise.

I've been on the dole before and its ****. What I would think is beneficial is providing more investment for FAS to educate the out of work. Its probably the one state agency that has a positive impact on unemployed people.

damnyanks

Make them build famine roads.

Maybe get them to do 10 hours a week community based work would be good.

Liam Byrne

I can see the pros and cons of this.

1) The people on the dole are supposed to be available for work if a job arises; if they're doing other work those tasks could get caught half-done or in no-man's-land

2) There are LOTS of things that used to be done before, and aren't now.....cutting roadsides, laying paths, tidying up council wasteland, etc, that it would be great if they were done by someone to make the country a nicer place to live.....

There used to be FAS community schemes that offered this under a training umbrella, but I'm not sure what the story is nowadays....

To me, it's a great balance - see what needs to be done in an area, get people to do it, and get them out of a (hopefully temporary) hole.

At the same time, we get value for the money that we're paying them through our taxes, and they learn new skills (one guy who was on our local FAS scheme learnt enough and went on to set up a stone wall-building company).

Win-win, if you ask me, and if I was unemployed I think it would make me feel useful.....

stovelid

Aye, I'm sure Ireland is just full of benevolent employers that would like to get their hands on 165 euro-a-week employees.

turgon

Tea drinker wrote: »

Can we implement a system of manadatory work in order to claim dole?

Public work schemes could work. The only thing is that it would technically deprive those "job seekers" of the time with which to "seek jobs".

Sam Kade

stovelid wrote: »

Aye, I'm sure Ireland is just full of benevolent employers that would like to get their hands on 165 euro-a-week employees.

They would be employed by the state. Why would the state pay them to work for someone else?

Sam Kade

who's yer one? wrote: »

i can't see the councils taking on anyone without 10 million years experience in whatever field they're looking to get into (from my experience, anyway) the

What! you need 10 million years experience to lean on a shovel :eek:

corkstudent

This is really a ridiculous, drastically right wing viewpoint. The idea of forcing people to work is a barbaric and inefficient one. You can't just force them to not be lazy, they'll end up doing a rubbish job, or just turning up and doing pretty much nothing.

There's nothing to be jealous about living on the dole, most people can't have decent lifestyles with minimum wage.

It also makes me angry the suggestion that it's somehow healthier to be working - when work related stress is probably one of the biggest causes of cancer.

brianthebard

Would there be a bus provided to transport people to and from these jobs,lunch provided,and someone in the swo to look for a real job for you while doing this?

Tea drinker

corkstudent wrote: »

This is really a ridiculous, drastically right wing viewpoint. The idea of forcing people to work is a barbaric and inefficient one. You can't just force them to not be lazy, they'll end up doing a rubbish job, or just turning up and doing pretty much nothing.

There's nothing to be jealous about living on the dole, most people can't have decent lifestyles with minimum wage.

It also makes me angry the suggestion that it's somehow healthier to be working - when work related stress is probably one of the biggest causes of cancer.

No, what's barbaric is that you think it's ok for people to be sat at home for the rest of their lives while the few opportunities life present pass you by. You also think it's ok to do that on someone elses dime. The idea here is that people are slowly getting used to the idea of working, and can break through the glass ceiling into the workforce.
It's not intended as a scare tactic for short term people, but as a tool to get long term people going who are stuck.
And lets face it, we all need a kick on the hole to get moving sometimes.

I know some people who make enough on the dole to get by, and they adapt their life to a sort of minimalist existence, but still save enough for a foreign holiday. But I wouldn't swop places with them for any money. But as I said in my OP I'm not jealous of long term unemployed, they are the ones who have learnt to fool themselves. Yes, I've been on the dole, but not for the last 13 years and even then only for a few weeks. But I've been lucky and have an eduction.

Of course it's far healthier to be working! At least in most jobs! Mental illness, in particular age related mental illnesses can be traced to lack of stimulation of the brain. I think you'll agree the dole is pretty dull.

@Brianthebard, it's not full time, I already said you get to pick the days you want to work. 3 days a week is enough IMHO for people to get moving again, and still have time to look for jobs.
How do people in full time employment find the time for job hunting and interviews?

brianthebard

What about the transport issue?Im on the dole and can't afford a car,how would i get to this 'job'?And if there is council work available why wouldn't they offer those positions-oh wait they do.If only there were some jobs specifically marked out for long term unemployed-oh wait there is.

Tea drinker

brianthebard wrote: »

What about the transport issue?Im on the dole and can't afford a car,how would i get to this 'job'?And if there is council work available why wouldn't they offer those positions-oh wait they do.If only there were some jobs specifically marked out for long term unemployed-oh wait there is.

Well firstly, Brianthebard re you saying you are on the dole or giving an example?
If you are out of workI sympathise with your situation, I know it's difficult. I'm not out to demonize our unemployed, I'm just exploring an idea about a particular set of the unemployed.

But, are you're trying to tell me it's hopeless and just forget about the long term unemployed, or? Are you in a convoluted way saying some people aren't employable because they don't live near areas with employment and have no access to public transport?

maybe I was unclear in OP but this work would be funded, i.e. these jobs don't exist today. I already said this would be a long term thing, trying to get people going again.

For jobs a bit further away transport could be provided, within 3 miles of you it's walk or bike.

Kind regards,
TD

Liam Byrne

corkstudent wrote: »

This is really a ridiculous, drastically right wing viewpoint. The idea of forcing people to work is a barbaric and inefficient one.

No-one's FORCING anyone to work. Like it or not, though, most of us HAVE to work in order to get paid.

So - again - no-one's proposing FORCING anyone to work. Just proposing that they - like everyone else - earn what they get.

If anyone wants to be so lazy as to do NOTHING (for no good reason) then they should get paid what they're worth.

oscarBravo

corkstudent wrote: »

It also makes me angry the suggestion that it's somehow healthier to be working - when work related stress is probably one of the biggest causes of cancer.

You'd be surprised how stressful idleness can be.

The right to work is considered one of the basic fundamental human rights for a reason.

stovelid

Sam Kade wrote: »

They would be employed by the state. Why would the state pay them to work for someone else?

I was assuming that the unemployed would be expected to work in return for their actual social welfare payments. A week's work will be done for somebody (employer or state) and it will cost (coincidentally of course) a fraction of normal labour costs.

If the state can pay them the same amount they would get in an equivalent factory job, why not? In conjunction with training and education, it could be a good idea.

Although, the usual ideology behind proposed work-for-your-dole schemes is a Thatcherite nostrum aimed at long term, hardcore "spongers", which as a estimated segment of 5% of the population, cause me far less worry (and waste/appropriate far less of my taxes) than white collar criminals and some of our elected representatives and other 'betters'.

brianthebard

Tea drinker wrote: »

Well firstly, Brianthebard re you saying you are on the dole or giving an example?
If you are out of workI sympathise with your situation, I know it's difficult. I'm not out to demonize our unemployed, I'm just exploring an idea about a particular set of the unemployed.

I wasn't looking for sympathy if its all the same.

But, are you're trying to tell me it's hopeless and just forget about the long term unemployed, or? Are you in a convoluted way saying some people aren't employable because they don't live near areas with employment and have no access to public transport?

Its not hopeless, but there are schemes in place already that aren't working properly. For instance I wasn't allowed apply for a job in an art gallery last year because I wasn't unemployed long enough. Fas jobs should be available to all on the dole, and people who are unemployed should be given some sort of favourable treatment in interviews. Often employers won't look at you if you aren't already working. How does someone who hasn't worked for a year or more break into the work force when employers have that attitude?

maybe I was unclear in OP but this work would be funded, i.e. these jobs don't exist today. I already said this would be a long term thing, trying to get people going again.

For jobs a bit further away transport could be provided, within 3 miles of you it's walk or bike.

Kind regards,
TD

If those jobs were available then they would already be advertised and filled. If they aren't available, and they have to be magicked from thin air, then they will cost extra in administration, training, health and safety, etc, etc, but without any of the benefits of being a proper job. I don't see any sense in creating two tier employment systems, the working world is already unbalanced enough as it is.

Tea drinker

brianthebard wrote: »

I wasn't looking for sympathy if its all the same.

Its not hopeless, but there are schemes in place already that aren't working properly. For instance I wasn't allowed apply for a job in an art gallery last year because I wasn't unemployed long enough. Fas jobs should be available to all on the dole, and people who are unemployed should be given some sort of favourable treatment in interviews. Often employers won't look at you if you aren't already working. How does someone who hasn't worked for a year or more break into the work force when employers have that attitude?



If those jobs were available then they would already be advertised and filled. If they aren't available, and they have to be magicked from thin air, then they will cost extra in administration, training, health and safety, etc, etc, but without any of the benefits of being a proper job. I don't see any sense in creating two tier employment systems, the working world is already unbalanced enough as it is.

WOW!

stovelid

Tea drinker wrote: »

WOW!

Is this an acronym that obliquely refers to a well-hidden, intelligent response?

Tea drinker

The Germans seem to have an excellent plan:

BERLIN (AFP) - Several thousand long-term unemployed Germans will be trained to care for people suffering from dementia, Suddeutsche Zeitung daily reported Saturday of a scheme that has drawn mixed reactions.

A law introduced on July 1 gives retirement homes extra staff to help care for people with dementia.
Groups of unemployed candidates are currently undergoing training across the country, a spokesperson for Germany's employment agency told the newspaper.



http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080816/tbs-germany-economy-unemployment-health-5268574.html

ChocolateSauce

I don't really care what they do, just so long as they work for their money. Cleaning the streets is one. Community work is good no matter what.

I don't pay taxes so drunkards in Donegal who still live with their parents can get the dole, for example.

thebman

theozster wrote: »

I don't really care what they do, just so long as they work for their money. Cleaning the streets is one. Community work is good no matter what.

I don't pay taxes so drunkards in Donegal who still live with their parents can get the dole, for example.

I agree with community work being the way to go. I'd say have it be voluntary to start with and then try to make it a system where people looking for jobs do it to make themselves look good to employers.

Make it something to be admired rather than a forced thing. If you could create that attitude that these people are voluntarily doing hard work in the hope to make themselves more attractive prospects to potential employers then the motivated unemployed could actually end up finding it easier to get a job as it wouldn't be assumed that they just want to spend dole money on booze.

Essentially this could be seen as diving people on the dole into two groups, those that don't want to work and those that do.

ChocolateSauce

That could be one way to go, yes.

Mainly, I think the dole should be withdrawn from people who refuse to do said services (except, obviously, people who genuinely can't work for whatever reason).

BKtje

There are plenty of jobs to do around that need to get done but aren't so a voluntary system would be great. Jobs don't have to be magicked out of the air, there simply isn't the money currently available to get them all done but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be done.

I have no idea how much the dole pays but surely working (voluntarily or not) for one day a week(or whatever) would still mean that you're getting "paid" above the minimum wage?

That still leaves you 6 days to find a job in.

Tea drinker

I think a 3 day week is quite easy for anyone to do, unless there is something wrong with you. How do people in full time jobs get work?
One reason is because you are meeting people through your job. Just like you would on a 3 day week.
I think there should be incentives to do this work, and we should be prepared to accept a cost, as it is benefitting the economy, and the individuals concerned.

As difficult as it is for some to face work, I seriously doubt they want to end their days having been unemployed for most of their lives.
Given that we have more and more folks on the dole, we need to make being unemployed "work". You never know when it could be you or a friend family member.

Hotblack Desiato

theozster wrote: »

Mainly, I think the dole should be withdrawn from people who refuse to do said services (except, obviously, people who genuinely can't work for whatever reason).

If you can't work you shouldn't be claiming the dole in the first place.
You must be fit for, available for, and actively seeking, work.

Work for dole is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory but has a lot of difficulties in practice, several already discussed on this thread. In addition there will be a lot of extra admin and supervision required, which could eat into much of the value of the work done (although you could claim that that's not the point, the work is the point, in which case let's have them breaking rocks.)

In reality what will happen if this is introduced is that there will suddenly be a hell of a lot of unemployed people claiming sickness benefit etc. on the grounds of stress, or whatever you're having yourself.

Latchy

There used to be a social work scheme back in the 80s were people who were on the dole worked for 3 ,4 days one week and got paid extra for it .The week they were not required to work thay got the same amount so bringing their total pay up to something a bit more respectable than what they were getting for doing nothing .This enabled long term unemployed to gain back some pride as well as a skill of some sorts ie, working in the public parks planting trees,painting ,building childrens playgrounds etc. .It also allowed them to look for other (full time ) jobs making their situation more attractive to potential employers .

Only thing was this was pre celtic tiger days and not sure if ,or how this would work in present economic climate .

stovelid

theozster wrote: »

I don't pay taxes so drunkards in Donegal who still live with their parents can get the dole, for example.

I can think of a multitude of things I don't like my taxes being squandered on. Many of which are far more of a drain than your example.

That's the thing about taxes isn't it? You don't opt in or out, or worse still - think of them as a form of unique largesse on your behalf for which you expect 'good value' in return.

gixerfixer

Unfortunatly the longer you are on the dole the harder it is to get work. Employers dont like to hire people who have been out of work for more than a year or so.
I have actually been told to my face that i was lazy because i didnt work for 11 months.

Latchy

gixerfixer wrote: »

Unfortunatly the longer you are on the dole the harder it is to get work. Employers dont like to hire people who have been out of work for more than a year or so.

That's one concept of how the unemployed are viewed and needs to be kicked into touch .

I have actually been told to my face that i was lazy because i didnt work for 11 months.

Some like to adopt the high moral ground about people out of work .As long as you were active and productive in other areas of your unemployment it should not matter .Real lazy people of course should be pushed to the back of the Q .

Tea drinker

gixerfixer wrote: »

Unfortunatly the longer you are on the dole the harder it is to get work. Employers dont like to hire people who have been out of work for more than a year or so.
I have actually been told to my face that i was lazy because i didnt work for 11 months.

I know what you mean. Would you agree that a system like this would offer a form of passport back to the workplace? At least it should reduce stigma, and offer up to date references.

brianthebard

latchyco wrote: »

That's one concept of how the unemployed are viewed and needs to be kicked into touch .

Some like to adopt the high moral ground about people out of work .As long as you were active and productive in other areas of your unemployment it should not matter .Real lazy people of course should be pushed to the back of the Q .

the lazy people probably aren't in the queue at all?I wouldnt mind working for the dole at all and think most people who are unemployed would be the same.Its hard to believe there are a few hundred thousand jobs waiting for people right now though.

SerialComplaint

theozster wrote: »

I don't really care what they do, just so long as they work for their money. Cleaning the streets is one. Community work is good no matter what.

If the streets need to be cleaned, why not create a real job and pay the person a decent living wage. Why would you want to have two street cleaners working side by side, one earning a decent wage and one earning dole for the same work.

Sounds like a scam for the state to get grunt work done for even less that the miserable rates paid to low level staff.

K4t

Enroll them in the army. Problem solved.

Tea drinker

I Don't agree K4t, I think military service would be better directed at problem teenagers (or all teenagers), or possibly some minor serial offenders.

Long term unemployed by and large aren't criminals, but people who need help. There are state agencies to help with training to get back in the workplace, but often the bridge back to full time employment doesn't exist. Or, they may have put up pschological barriers that prevent them being in gainful employment.
A "work for your dole" scheme is meant to bridge the gap to employment and demonstrate to people how they can return to the workforce. It's not targetted at all those on the dole, only the long term, who demonstrably need such help.

rainbow kirby

I've been on the dole for just over 2 months, and quite frankly I'm so bored I'd be happy to work for my dole. But it's not really an issue now, because I've decided to head back to college and finish my degree - just hope I don't end up in the same crap situation this time next year!

--amadeus--

This idea is being kicked around in the UK at the moment as well.

With the economy contracting there will be an increase in the number of people on benifits (of all kinds) and with construction being particularly hard hit some (many) of the new unemployed will be people with some skills and qualifications.

Hand in hand with an ecomonic slowdown is usually a reduction in government investment. Slackening economies generate smaller tax revenues which are also hit with higher benift claims leaving less capital available for investment.

And we also have a situation where the country is generally regarded as not being as "nice" a place to live asin teh "good old days" (nostalgia just ain't what it used to be!)

All claiments are comprehensivly vetted under teh current system anyway. It wouldn't be difficult to categorise all new registrations under a high/medium/low skillset marked out by industry sector. This could then create a pool of talent that can be used to reduce costs on badly needed infrastructural projects (all those SafePass qualified construction workers) and make the country a better place to live (graffitti removal, litter collection and other social and community work such as visiting the old or helping in nursing homes). All skillsets can be catered for - eg the hospitality industry is slowing so kitchen staff could help at canteens on the construction sites. If you are an IT worker you could be tasked with training or education, setting up school PC networks or whatever. Factory supervisors now out of work could supervise crews in any sector - man management is man management and it could count as cross training. All it takes is a little creativity.

Nor would this be restricted to those on unemployment benifit. Even those on long term sick could be found work. A bad back won't stop you reading to the blind for example.

This wouldn't be full time - 2 - 4 days per week. The economic benifits are clear - cost savings on capital projects coupled with a generally higher level of economic activity. The unemployed could use a project work based CV to show that even though they weren't in mainstream employment they were active and learned new skills. All it takes is imagination and will and a signifigantly nicer country would result.

Wompa1

I also think nobody with two or more offence on their criminal record should not be elegible for the dole but that might be deemed harsh. I'd just rather not think the guy that might from me isn't also getting paid from me at the same time.

SerialComplaint

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Hand in hand with an ecomonic slowdown is usually a reduction in government investment. Slackening economies generate smaller tax revenues which are also hit with higher benift claims leaving less capital available for investment.

[...]
It wouldn't be difficult to categorise all new registrations under a high/medium/low skillset marked out by industry sector. This could then create a pool of talent that can be used to reduce costs on badly needed infrastructural projects (all those SafePass qualified construction workers) and make the country a better place to live (graffitti removal, litter collection and other social and community work such as visiting the old or helping in nursing homes). All skillsets can be catered for - eg the hospitality industry is slowing so kitchen staff could help at canteens on the construction sites. If you are an IT worker you could be tasked with training or education, setting up school PC networks or whatever. Factory supervisors now out of work could supervise crews in any sector - man management is man management and it could count as cross training. All it takes is a little creativity.
.

My bolding for emphasis.

Thanks for confirming my worst fears that this is really about getting cheap labour. How can you have two kitchen staff/nurses aides/construction workers working side by side, one of whom is earning decent money, and the other of whom is getting the dole - being effectively punished for having the misfortune of finding himself on the dole.

If these works need to be done, then they should be filled as normal jobs paying a decent living wage, or tendered out to external providers as appropriate. It is grossly inequitable to pay two people doing the same work completely different wages.

--amadeus--

SerialComplaint wrote: »

My bolding for emphasis.

Thanks for confirming my worst fears that this is really about getting cheap labour. How can you have two kitchen staff/nurses aides/construction workers working side by side, one of whom is earning decent money, and the other of whom is getting the dole - being effectively punished for having the misfortune of finding himself on the dole.

If these works need to be done, then they should be filled as normal jobs paying a decent living wage, or tendered out to external providers as appropriate. It is grossly inequitable to pay two people doing the same work completely different wages.

Two points on that. 1st is that it is not uncomon for people to be on different rates of pay while doing fundamentally the same job.

2nd point is that at no stage was I considering mixing "public" and "private" labour. You are assuming I am coming from a right wing perspective of subsadising private corporations with state provided labour (like this). In fact I am coming in from a left wing perspective where I wouldn't have private companies involved at all. The entire project could feasibly be managed using entirley state labour so there would be no inequalities in pay and no "punishment" for those on the dole. As and when teh economy picks up again the pool of talent will shrink and so the state either brings these people on in full time jobs or reverts to sub-contracting.

SerialComplaint

--amadeus-- wrote: »

1st is that it is not uncomon for people to be on different rates of pay while doing fundamentally the same job.

It is quite uncommon for two people to be on different rates of pay while doing the same job in the same organisation for no good reason. There may be a good reason, such as years of service or experience. But discriminating on pay because one person was unfortunate enough to find themselves on the dole is certainly unethical, and probably illegal.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

2nd point is that at no stage was I considering mixing "public" and "private" labour. You are assuming I am coming from a right wing perspective of subsadising private corporations with state provided labour (like this). In fact I am coming in from a left wing perspective where I wouldn't have private companies involved at all. The entire project could feasibly be managed using entirley state labour so there would be no inequalities in pay and no "punishment" for those on the dole. As and when teh economy picks up again the pool of talent will shrink and so the state either brings these people on in full time jobs or reverts to sub-contracting.

I'm really not assuming anything, other than what you've said in your posts, which is that cheap labour will be available to the state. Perhaps you could clarify how you're going to "reduce costs on badly needed infrastructural projects" (all of which are tendered to private contractors) using state labour without having inequalities of pay? And perhaps you could clarify who is going to manage all these cheap labourers?

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Two points on that. 1st is that it is not uncomon for people to be on different rates of pay while doing fundamentally the same job.

2nd point is that at no stage was I considering mixing "public" and "private" labour. You are assuming I am coming from a right wing perspective of subsadising private corporations with state provided labour (like this). In fact I am coming in from a left wing perspective where I wouldn't have private companies involved at all. The entire project could feasibly be managed using entirley state labour so there would be no inequalities in pay and no "punishment" for those on the dole. As and when teh economy picks up again the pool of talent will shrink and so the state either brings these people on in full time jobs or reverts to sub-contracting.

SerialComplaint

--amadeus-- wrote: »

1st is that it is not uncomon for people to be on different rates of pay while doing fundamentally the same job.

It is quite uncommon for two people to be on different rates of pay while doing the same job in the same organisation for no good reason. There may be a good reason, such as years of service or experience. But discriminating on pay because one person was unfortunate enough to find themselves on the dole is certainly unethical, and probably illegal.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

2nd point is that at no stage was I considering mixing "public" and "private" labour. You are assuming I am coming from a right wing perspective of subsidising private corporations with state provided labour

PS - That's some scary stuff in the US prisons article. It's like a return to slavery.

--amadeus--

Bearing in mind experience or service two people can be doing fundamentally the same job for different amounts of money, so we broadly agree on that I think.

I wasn't impling that the private companies would have any further involvment - the state would use those on benifits of whatever discreption to replace private companies; the opposite of privatisation. And the starte (using current employees or again the suitably skilled from those on benifits) would do the supervising. Basically Sisks (or whoever) out, State in. Utopian, I know.

brianthebard

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Bearing in mind experience or service two people can be doing fundamentally the same job for different amounts of money, so we broadly agree on that I think.

Why do you want to create a two tier employment system within the state-if there are jobs available, why not just employ people from the dole, and give the long term unemployed preferential treatment at the interview and selection stage?

SerialComplaint

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I wasn't impling that the private companies would have any further involvment - the state would use those on benifits of whatever discreption to replace private companies; the opposite of privatisation. And the starte (using current employees or again the suitably skilled from those on benifits) would do the supervising. Basically Sisks (or whoever) out, State in. Utopian, I know.

Far from Utopia. For a start, on existing contracts, the State doesn't have the option to kick out Sisks or whoever on the whim of a policy change. The contracts are in place, and Sisks or whoever would rightly screw the State in every court in the land if the State walked away from existing contracts.

So that leaves new contracts - availability of cheap labour is a minor factor in taking on infrastructural contracts. Regardless of what labour is available, the state would be taking on huge risk by opting to complete these projects in-house, risk that is currently (and in recent years, successfully) outsourced to external contractors. The State of course would also need to put in place a management structure to manage such resources.

Given that economic cycles are cyclical, it is very likely that by the time the new contracts with the cheap labour are in place, the economy will be picking up and the State will have to complete with Sisks et al for labour.

So apart from the serious ethical issues involved in NOT paying people a fair wage for a fair days work, there are huge practical reasons why this is not a good idea.