to increase there chances of getting a job and if they don't should they loose their benefits?
2006-10-15 07:22:28 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
by the way i am working at a radio station
2006-10-15 07:26:33 · update #1
they should be made to do really shitty tasks ,,, that way we wouldnt have half of europe converging on the uk
2006-10-15 07:32:33 · answer #1 · answered by muttentrumpet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we should remember that there is a very big difference between those who cannot find a job and those who refuse to work because they are comfortable getting benefits and working on the side now and again for cash in hand!
The former I feel sorry for, the latter should be prosecuted and made to take the jobs others "refuse" to do.
2006-10-15 09:28:55 · answer #2 · answered by LYN W 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean by more than one job at a time should they have a pen in each hand and be using their noses on the computer keyboard to fill in applications simultaneously. At present job seekers have to apply for a minimum of 3 jobs per week.
2006-10-15 07:39:36 · answer #3 · answered by bill 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That depends on where you live. Places like Whitby are seasonal and almost everything comes to a standstill over the winter and the all-year round jobs are few and far between. It would be a bit cruel on the people trying their very hardest to get a job to do this. In cities and big towns though I agree with you. As long as it doesn't mean that all the chavs move to coastal resorts like mine.
2006-10-15 07:25:47 · answer #4 · answered by MGN2006 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. At my local job centre, if you are on Job Seekers you are required to apply for at least 3 different jobs per week.
2006-10-15 07:25:03 · answer #5 · answered by african_queen_86 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The argument against people who don't want to work getting pushed into jobs is that they'll be messing up the environment of whatever place they join next. I wonder whether it's a good idea to shove these people in the first place. And against popular conception, I don't think all people want to stay home on the pitance that's given them.
2006-10-15 07:25:30 · answer #6 · answered by crudhouse 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
don't be silly,
Ive just left uni with a degree i had a 2:1 and I'm currently on job seekers because there are no jobs where i live.
i really really want to work but because of the economic status of the area and jobs been cut, there are none about.
I've looked in to starting a business but i need to move away, this obviously is impossible with no money.
it is too easy for people to assume that people on job seekers are spongers, their not.
i just hope you never find yourself out of work, because i wouldn't wish my situation on anyone.
2006-10-15 07:27:29 · answer #7 · answered by Heather 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can't and shouldn't make people do things. You should offer them incentives for doing things, or disincentives for not. The 'carrot and the stick'.
The biggest incentive you could offer would be the improved chance of getting a job, and some dignity, the biggest disincentive would be no benefits.
2006-10-15 07:43:16 · answer #8 · answered by cocoshitnick 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes they should and they should also have to do charity work to earn their benefits until they find a paid job.
There are hundreds of low skilled jobs available at our local job centre for people
2006-10-15 07:27:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why? If job seekers are not given the measly £50 per week to keep them fed, the money goes back to the treasury and we all know that they spend it on bombs. It is our money. Taxpayers money and it is better to go to the jobless than for the politicos to buy bombs to drop on other poor people, don't you think?
2006-10-15 07:52:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. And I recon they should contact their local office daily, and a random amount should be called in to stop them having a job on the side with the rest of us buying their drinks!
2006-10-15 07:29:45 · answer #11 · answered by Avon 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋