Sorry but this is ridiculous. I am sure there are some workshy people put there but the [uvast majority[/u are not. IDS wants to force [uall[/u unemployed people onto workfare because he thinks they should work for their benefits. He shows contempt toward people genuinely seeking work as his comments about Cait Reilly show. She doesn't need to be trained to get up and neither do the vast majority of the unemployed.

As someone tweeted earlier:

[i"I went to Uni so I could leave my job at Kwik Save, not so that I could go back and work there for benefits!"[/i

Yeah but it's not like their work shy, it doesn't even cross their mind that they are doing anything wrong, dole is just what you do.

But it does need tailoring, it's ridiculous to make that girl go on the programme, but I feel it could have a place for the people I describe.

What was their degree in - "The practical aspects of retail display" or something equally intellectual?

Are the likes of Tesco/Poundland etc "Pay Shy"

If they have a job pay someone to do it if not do not use the government as a press gang machine.

They already exploit the NI system for all it is worth by having people on 10/15 hour contracts so having to pay very little in NI contributions. Until NI starts being paid by the employer (perhaps with small employers exempt and kept on the current NI system) from the first penny earnt there is no incentive to employ people on proper wages for full time roles. With that and Tax Credits subserdising poor wages big business are basically taking the p**s much more than any dole cheat.

If workfare has to exist restrict it to small businesses, charities and voluntree organisations and certainly keep the big retailers well away from it.

Well said.

If the government want to place people there has to be an incentive for the employer - would you not agree? Using big companies with outlets nation wide will cut down on the admin required to place people - if you were going to place people with small employers you would need significantly more people to administer it, I know many on here like the public sector model where admin rules but is that really cost/efficiency effective?

Agree re the point of employers NI - if you agree with it then it should apply to every penny earned. Put the minimum wage up to a level that not require tax credits and you will have significantly increased levels of unemployment.

Absolutely not because as we see all that translates to is the taxpayer subsidizing employers with free labour.

This has the knock on effect of keeping the unemployed out of a job paying minimum wage paid for by the employer not the tax payer and it also keeps the underemployed who would like more hours - underemployed.

The system is crazy. Even if we accept the weak notion that some people need to be dragged into the world of work the way it is being done simply keeps more people out of work! Utterly stupid idea.

As I'll say again, it's all about the demonisation card being played.
It helps cover up this Governments inability to regenerate the economy and create opportunities for the vast majority of unemployed who are desperate to do a fair days work, have a bit of dignity, and a few spare quid in their pockets, as opposed to the many who are scratching around on the bones of their @rses.

Iain Duncan Smith is a fooking disgrace.

Rapidly becoming the worst of a very bad bunch. A truly despicable excuse for a human being.

There are plenty of charities and not for profit organisations out there who would benefit hugely from some free labour, why give that free labour to huge profit making companies?

My view is that work placement could be very beneficial to some people. So long as its in a field relevant to their prospects, actually helps the individual and is not for such a significant amount of time. 6 months is far too long and is simply exploitation. A month full-time is adequate in my view, so long as its a relevant placement. It shouldn't happen just for the sake of it.