Workfare to be imposed in Britain

[Hannah Bell]

Britain is being subjected to a savage programme of social engineering, designed to create an economy where millions work for much less than the present £5.93 an hour minimum wage. This centres on plans to introduce workfare for the long-term unemployed, who will be forced to work for their benefit plus a £1-an-hour top-up.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is set to introduce US-style compulsory “workfare”, under threat of withdrawal of benefits to entire families. A new “claimant commitment” will include sterner conditions, notably the threat that unemployed people who refuse community work or the offer of a job may lose their jobseeker’s allowance for three months; if they refuse twice, six months; and three years on third refusal.

The £30 or £40 a week, or £1 an hour, those forced to do such work will receive is one sixth of the present minimum wage and sets a new benchmark that will see it effectively nullified.

The meagre £65 a week unemployment allowance will be removed for three months on a first “offence” of refusing work, six months the second time and three years after a third breach. People will also be subject to penalties for failing to turn up on time or not working hard enough. Those convicted of benefit fraud could also have their benefits stopped for three years. There will be no right of appeal.

The net result will be the mobilisation of the unemployed, including single mothers and over a million of the sick and infirm on incapacity benefits, as a “reserve army of labour”. They will either directly replace existing workers’ jobs or be used to depress wage levels.

This exercise is being sold first of all by whipping up populist prejudice against the supposedly “workshy” and the “feckless”, who are unemployed as a “lifestyle choice”. Prime Minister David Cameron declared that “a life of benefits will no longer be an option”. People “don’t pay their taxes to pay for people to stay on benefit”, he said.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/work-n13.shtml

[mrbscott19]

1. Am I reading this wrong or

is this more or less slave labor? Seems to me the government will be able to tell the poor and unemployed "you either do the job we say and take what we give you and like it, or we will cut you off completely".

I didn't read the article but thats what I got from the summary posted.

[RandomThoughts]

2. When people making multi millions can show how they earned it.

Then there will be a valid argument of austerity measures.

They can't show they earned millions, hence until that error in the system is corrected that argument is only class warfare, and not based on either reason nor is it based on justice.

And it definitely is not based on compassion.


If a person works, much of the money from that work goes to people that don't need it. And I would guess that 95% of the people would say they don't work so someone with millions can have a few dollars more.

It is a broken argument.

Taxation of upper brackets is to fix the broken parts of capitalism. There will always be a 5% on the top that will not work for what they have, and a 5% on the bottom that will not work for what they have.

Shouldn't they be treated the same?


Note, what is top and what is bottom can also be debated within that concept.

[midnight]

3. It is your idea about the bottom 5% that interests me.

I'm not sure what you mean about the bottom 5% being treate the same as the top 5%?

[RandomThoughts]

5. By bottom and top, I am talking within context of economic earnings.

So bottom 5% of earners, don't want to work and live off of other peoples taxes.

While the top 5% either don't want to work, and live off of money making money, or live off of other people working.


Both probably have hobbies and things to keep themselves busy, but if you are going to starve or scare the economic bottom 5% into working, that does not bode well for the richer classes, since they are no different really.



So if you say the unemployed that do not want to work should some how not live off of taxes, then you have to say the top 5% should not live off of other peoples work, or money making money. The only difference is the system of distribution.

And it really is hard to say what is the top and the bottom, considering some of the things people tolerate to get extremely wealthy.

Side note, I am still due beer and travel money and many experiences.

Side note, the meme that the unemployed don't want to work is also questionable.

[Starry Messenger]

4. recommend.

[TBF]

6. K&R nt

[Hannah Bell]

7. k