Volunteer Work For The Unemployed

[cycas]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11706545

 

Do you think that the Archbishop is right that people who are already struggling for work will find this a depressing idea?

 

Or, is it a good way of encouraging people who have decided that they don't want to work, to get back into the habit of working?

 

I am wondering how useful the actual work will be - it will surely be difficult to organise work that people can do without any training and without transport costs, for relatively short periods, particularly if significant numbers of the 'volunteers' don't want to be there.

 

On the other hand I can see the benefit of encouraging people to take a pride in where they live, giving them something to do that is structured like work - and the ruling that people who are looking for work cannot do more than a few hours a week of voluntary work always struck me as daft.

[Happylittlegreensquirrel]

I can see it from both sides ,

 

I am unemployed but cannot claim any benefits such as jobseekers allowance as I have savings and some redundancy money tucked away , plus my volunteer work for Dogstar would also prohibit me from claiming ( not that I wanted to claim to date )

 

 

So I volunteer full time for my own charity and it gives me some self respect but at the end of the day its not the same as having a proper job that actually pays me a wage , that said I have really enjoyed the work experience I did ( unpaid ) at Veterinary practices this year ( which I arranged privately )

 

I can understand getting out and into the workplace could really help some people feel good about themselves and keep skills fresh etc but if they like me really want a real job its a bit bittersweet to work for nothing all the time no matter how good a cause its for

 

equally the type of person who wants to live on benefits is not going to make a very proactive volunteer

 

from a Charity point of view I would not want people volunteering for Dogstar that were doing it by "force" either

 

 

I don't think its a totally bad idea and I would be interested to see how it works

[Ruthi (borrowadog)]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11706545

 

Do you think that the Archbishop is right that people who are already struggling for work will find this a depressing idea?

 

 

 

Whether or not they find it a depressing idea, it will still help many. Money is only one of the things we gain from work, and even relatively menial work still gives some satisfaction, social contact, gets you up in the morning.... It is cruel in the current situation to leave thousands of people festering at home.

 

We used to have something similar in the 80s, the Community Programme. It was combined with support with job hunting, and they paid a little bit extra over and above benefit to cover the expenses of being at 'work'. It wasn't a cheap scheme, but it did help lots of the long termers get into work. Because it wasn't cheap it was abolished - by the Tories under Thatcher. But the folk on the scheme mostly valued it. Not all, of course, but most.

 

When there aren't enough jobs to go round making sure the long term unemployed get a bite of the cherry is the humane thing to do. I am all in favour.

 

Also, I'm not sure that anyone who is able-bodied and capable of work has the right to sit on their backside at the expense of the taxpayer.

 

In the 80's I ran a YTS scheme. We had a sister organisation that ran a Community Programme in the same town. The really sad thing was that most of the participants on the CP scheme had failed to get a YTS place, and before that had been failed by the education system. By the time they got to the CP scheme it was hard work getting them fit for work. If we'd had better provision in schools, and then for 16-18s they would probably not have ended up on CP. No doubt the majority of people on this new programme will also be the casualties of a system that fails those who don't fit the system too well.

 

Lots of folk will be unemployed for a while in the next few years. Most will get another job within a reasonable period, and although it won't be a happy experience, they'll survive. Some like Sam will find themselves an alternative way of living. A few will find themselves at the bottom of the heap yet again.

[cycas]

Whether or not they find it a depressing idea, it will still help many. Money is only one of the things we gain from work, and even relatively menial work still gives some satisfaction, social contact, gets you up in the morning.... It is cruel in the current situation to leave thousands of people festering at home.

 

OMG, that was a bit closer to the knuckle than (I assume) it was intended.... ( I work for myself from home in a job that involves rarely seeing other human beings, and all too often don't get started as early as I should do in the morning, then get attacks of the guilts )

 

Tomorrow, I shall definitely feel that I am festering!

 

There are definitely a lot of jobs where experience from volunteering can be very handy, so why people aren't currently allowed to do it I don't get.

 

Agree with Sam that people who don't want to volunteer will be a bit chocolate teapotty in most volunteer organisations though...

[Happylittlegreensquirrel]

when I am in the UK I rarely see anyone in the daytime apart from the postie , most of my Dogstar work is done online ( maybe 5 % by phone ) so I often don't talk to anyone but the dogs and Gertie who I fear is not listening unless I mention food

[snow]

I'm dead against it - it's just cheap labour and a way of trying to redress the impact of their ridiculous cuts, any meaningful volunteer work that requires doing also has requirements for the charities involved to TRAIN these people to do the work, not forgetting CRB checks etc all of which COST charities and for what? Someone who is around for a couple of weeks who doesn't really want to be there and who'll need to be supervised - who's going to be doing that then? If there is work that needs doing then pay someone to do it, by having unpaid people doing it then you are preventing someone else from having that job and getting off benefits permanently.

 

I don't deny there are indeed some people on benefits who do not want to work, but this is not the way to go about tackling that issue, moreover there are going to be hundreds of thousands MORE unemployed as a result of the cuts who will be desperatly looking for work and not finding it, it wont be their fault that they end up long term unemployed and the vast majority of them will be desperate to find a regular paying job.

 

I spent most of this morning searching for jobs in Wales for hubby, anywhere in S Wales and ANY job the only criterior I have is a minimum salary figure and beleive me it's not a big one, just one which would allow us to maybe have a very small mortgage, I found 2 jobs, 1 which was a 1 year contract and 1 which was 16 months contract. 2 Jobs in the whole of S Wales.

[chickentikka]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11706545

 

and the ruling that people who are looking for work cannot do more than a few hours a week of voluntary work always struck me as daft.

 

I'm not sure where that comes from - there is no limit as long as the person follows the 'rules' for claiming their benefits (such as being available for interview and actively seeking work).

 

Personally, I think that those who want to volunteer while looking for work probably already do so, and it will cost too much to try and get an enforced scheme off the ground.

[cycas]

I'm not sure where that comes from - there is no limit as long as the person follows the 'rules' for claiming their benefits (such as being available for interview and actively seeking work).

 

 

I've met a number of people who have told me they have been told they can't continue voluntary work without losing benefits. Not something I've ever encountered myself though so I don't know the details - perhaps there was some wrinkle with their personal circumstances that affected this?

[Jacobean]

I've met a number of people who have told me they have been told they can't continue voluntary work without losing benefits. Not something I've ever encountered myself though so I don't know the details - perhaps there was some wrinkle with their personal circumstances that affected this?

 

 

When I was on jobseekers briefly after my op I was allowed to work a certain number of voluntary hours and claim the benefit. There was a limit to how many you could work and still claim. I declared that I was working for Oldies Club. Daft thing is having to state the days and how many hours per day when you're not actually working for a normal charity but are at home.

 

I'm currently in the took a job because it was a job category. Not my normal job and hate it. I've been trying to find a job in my normal field ever since and searching and there is nothing out there.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Jacobean

[blackmagic]

from the DirectgovHow volunteering affects your benefits

 

Volunteering shouldn’t affect your right to benefits, as long as the only money you receive is to cover your volunteering expenses, such as travel from home to the volunteering location.

 

There are no limits on the amount of time you can volunteer for as long as you continue to meet the conditions of the benefit or tax credit you are receiving.

 

For example if you receive Jobseekers Allowance you must still be actively seeking a full-time job, able to attend job interviews at 48 hours notice and available to work at one week’s notice.

 

However, in most cases, if you volunteer full-time and receive an allowance from your volunteering organisation you will not usually be eligible to receive benefits. It is always advisable to discuss your choice of voluntary work with your benefits adviser before you start. wensite

[BillyMalc]

I think it's one of those typically Tory toff plans, coming from people who have a fat salary, a big house, have no idea and simply don't care beyond keeping and increasing what they've got themselves.

 

I've heard of a few organisations that get people, who don't want to be there, shoved down their throats and the effect that it's having, both on the actual workforce and the quality of work done, it's just a nightmare! Imagine having to train people who don't want to be there in doing a job that they don't want to do, and thus don't lift a finger when you're not looking (because there actually is work that needs doing)? It creates more work for the people who are already struggling in their jobs to get the work done with the means they've got. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not at all suggesting that everyone on jobseekers is a lazy sod who doesn't want to work. However, there is a massive difference between finding a job yourself and being told that from such and such a day onwards, you're going to report to this and that organisation to do something that you have no say over whatsoever. It's not at all clear how this is going to be implemented: will people be given options, or have a say in what kind of work they would like to do? And, should they actually like what they are doing, would they be allowed to stay on, either while on benefits or by actually getting some kind of pay out of it? Or would they, after having done their 4 weeks, be "sacked" again to make space for the next unemployed person to do 4 weeks? Imagine what a strain it would be on the people working on the job to have to train up somebody new every 4 weeks - it's just ridiculous!

And will people, who are already doing voluntary work, be exempted or will people who do valuable work for, say, an animal charity, have to give that up for 4 weeks, so that they can go litter picking?

 

What I find most grating about this whole idea, is some rich toff, Ian D Smith, talking patronisingly about all these people, who "need a taste of what it's like to work", while in the same week announcing that about 500.000 (local) government jobs will have to go! I've been made redundant in May, and I've struggled from one temp job to the next, and I know a fair few people, who all had excellent jobs, who are now also looking at being made redundant. We all liked the "taste of wrok" thankyouverymuch, and would have preferred to keep it! Isn't it a bit very cheeky to pull the rug from underneath people's feet and then tell them that they should be picking litter from 9-5 to be reminded of what it's like to be in work! Stop shutting everything down and causing people to get sacked, then we don't need to be "reminded what it is like to work"!

 

And it's going to have a bad effect on creating new jobs as well: why create new jobs if you can have someone on the dole doing the work for free?

 

Absolutely bonkers idea, could only come from a rich fat tory, am dead against it (but you might have guessed that already)

[Mrs Mop]

For and against, it depends on how it is done and if there is any payment to the people who do it. There should be some payment, it is why we go out to work to earn enough money to have what we want.

 

When I was a child the men on the dole would clear the pavements of snow, it was quite common to see. They may have resented having to do this but when they were out working and talking it wasn't as bad as they expected and they got a small wage for this.

 

What does bother me is all the scarmonging going on when new things are suggested, all parties do this, let out various schemes to see what the response is, they don't say how it will be done and in many cases they are never heard of again. This isn't governing the country, this is testing to see what will be acceptable and what won't.

 

Were have all the men gone that could make a decision after they have looked into the facts.

[cycas]

However, in most cases, if you volunteer full-time and receive an allowance from your volunteering organisation you will not usually be eligible to receive benefits. It is always advisable to discuss your choice of voluntary work with your benefits adviser before you start. wensite

 

I wonder if that bit is where my impression that they stop you if you want to work for any period of time comes from. I don't see why someone shouldn't volunteer full time and have their bus fare paid. I remember someone on a course I did was longterm unemployed and had been stopped from doing volunteering at a museum, which was the field that he wanted to get into (and is almost impossible to get into without a fair bit of volunteer experience). They wanted him to do 'training' instead, but the courses he could actually get to without a car were basic numeracy and literacy : as he was a biology graduate, that wasn't much use! But that was a while ago now maybe the rules have changed.

 

I can see the transport issue as being a major one, specially given the price of petrol. They suggested that one area they were going to step up was conservation volunteering : I've done a fair bit of that, it's great fun but I reckon you'd need to be bloody fit to cycle out, do a full day and cycle home again, I don't think I could have done it even when I was a slim and active student! I remember the bus being full of people barely able to stay awake on the way home!

 

The news story I saw said that people would be allowed a wide choice of volunteer work, but I can see all sorts of practical hurdles with that in terms of the right sort of work not being available in the right places, and training not being available...

 

Re jobs, volunteering and training, someone I know (not on here) was complaining that it was *totally impossible* to get skills in the area she wanted, because no employer wanted to hire and then train her, and charities don't offer training. So I offered her volunteer work and training (fairly specialised - programming work, for which she had some relevant skills) on the Oldies Club site and spent ages setting up a mirror site for her to work on safely without breaking anything. And then I set up what I thought was a fairly small and manageable task, wrote up instructions, and sent her some tutorials.

 

She did about 3 hours work, came back to me once with some questions, then gave up and that was it. I spent so long trying to get her going on that, I'm still depressed about the wasted time. I even had this idea that once she'd done a few basic tasks well I would start offering her some freelance paid work, but she never got that far! Somewhat ironically, I was training her in a field that nobody has ever trained me in, I taught myself...

[merledogs]

I think it's a great idea, provided that it's done properly, ie by targetting those people who are long term unemployed and who haven't shown much inclination to look for jobs.

[owl]

I'm mostly with BillyMalc on this one. I have no time for those who think work is for mugs, but the fact is that most unemployed people would like jobs. The present system is getting more illogical by the day and people on benefit are being shuffled around in a cost-cutting exercise. Jobs like gardening and street maintenance should be proper jobs. And won't more jobs need to be created to provide supervision of the people being forced to do this work? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

I had a chat last night with my friend Eddie, a highly qualified engineer with multiple skills who has had little work over the past few years, only casual contract work or jobs where the firm folded after a few weeks. His age is against him, he is now 60. The job centre told him not to call in as they would never find him a job. Nevertheless he kept searching. Pension credit used to be available instead of Jobseekers from the age of 60, but that has recently been suspended until 6 months after turning 60 so he won't get it until March. Suddenly the Job Centre have got back in touch and decided he needs to go to college for 2 years to get a particular basic qualification for the work he has done at an advanced level for 30+ years as this will give him a better chance of employment. Can't he just take the exam? No, they say he must go back to college with 16 yr old school leavers. The DSS will pay for the course, he will continue to get Jobseekers allowance for the 2 years which will be much less than pension credit and a lot of it will go on transport to college every day.

 

Well, he went along to the interview and was asked if he really wanted to join a class of 16 yr olds to learn things he already had been doing for much of his working life. He said that he had to say yes because that was what the Jobcentre had told him to say. The college tutor obviously thought the whole idea was ridiculous.

 

So what is happening? Why are over-60s with little hope of future employment being shoved into college places which should rightfully go to school-leavers? I suppose it's cheaper to pay for a college course than Pension Credit for the 2 years?

 

What worries me most about the current government is their punitive attitude. We are being given the impression that we as a nation are all lazy good-for-nothings who must be punished as severely as possible for the financial mess the country is in. The older generation, most of whom have worked hard all their lives, are the frequent target for blame. It is not helpful to demoralise people, and that is what this government is doing. We are expected to feel ashamed of ourselves and to feel that we deserve everything we get. A nation in crisis needs to be encouraged, not demoralised.

 

Meanwhile, in an environment where crime probably has more of a future than most other occupations, police and prison services are being cut. The number of prisoners will be reduced, and offenders will do more community service instead. A fellow dogwalker is a prison officer. Funny thing about having a dog, you end up chatting with a different and wider section of the population than you otherwise would. He is deeply concerned as he says hardly any of the prisoners in his care have any intention of changing their lifestyle. Prison is seen as a kind of occupational hazard by some, there are others with drug or mental problems who need help and won't get it. He really feels that nowadays most people in his prison do need to be there and those who intend to go straight are already doing community service.