Just watched a young man on BBC Newsnight say (more or less) that it was an affront to him that he should be forced to get up every morning for 4 weeks and go to a job that was not of his choosing AND that he would not get paid for it. Seemed to forget that for the last 48 weeks he had been paid by the poor, hardworking, hardup taxpayer for doing nothing.
No I dont think they should be forced to work for the benefits (its not for nothing). My thoughts are that after 6 weeks unemployed (long enough to find a job if you want one) you are allowed to continue receiving benefits in return for turning up and contributing to one of these schemes OR if you choose not to go on the scheme then no benefits.
I do think though that the likes of Tescos should pay the equivalent in benefits back to the government so they cant be accused of using free labour.
That should be a suitably difficult set up thereby ensuring that it costs more than it ultimately delivers as per most government run schemes.
I think that these companies were doing something worthwhile actually giving these young people a chance to do something positive.
After all, they can't have been the easiest people to deal with.
Some young people have gone on to find jobs with the companies who have given them the chance, some haven't. Maybe it is time to have some sort of compulsory social service for young people who are not in work or education!
That is whole point of the scheme but as there has been an outcry about Tesco's and other large companies who signed up getting free labour they have jumped ship.
I think Neil, that he will be allowed to keep his job-seekers allowance during his time of "forced" employment.
You can see how necessary it now is to employ this kind of semi-coercion, as he is, obviously, not used to any kind of routine, working or otherwise.