The problem is though, that by attempting to stamp out the abuse you end up actually spending more than if you just left it untackled. We spend far more on chasing/finding and prosecuting benefits fraud than we ever save in doing so.

Mostly the 'abuse' of the system isn't people living the high life and desperately avoiding work. It's more often someone who is unable to take on a full-time/permanent job claiming benefits, with a few hours a week of undeclared work (maybe £30 or so doing a cleaning job, or a few hours a week on a marketstall) often just for a few weeks at a time.

One of the problems with benefits is that if you take on a job that doesn't work out, you've lost all your benefits (including help with rent etc) and are back at the start of the process, making fresh claims that can take weeks or months. IF you've been fired from the job, or walked out (for example if your boss makes your life hell) you can't claim benefits straight away. You can get 'hardship' payments but the whole while (several months) you are building up a backlog of unpaid rent.

For many people living at the margins of the economy, their experience of emplyment is often negative: employers who treat them with little respect, fights with overbearing supervisers etc, messed about on ovetime or shifts. I know of one employer in my town who only employs on temporary contracts and whose workers regularly get to the factory to start work and are told to go home again and try tomorrow.

I believe there should be a grace period with a new job. The people who struggle most in this area, the ones who are most profoundly stuck on benefits, are often also the people most vulnerable to bad employment practice and bullying in the workplace. I can understand why they don't want to make the leap off benefits into a workplace that might chew them up and spit them out, and then leave them high and dry with no benefits.

That's why I had to depend on Steve for 3 months when I moved down here.
If I hadn't had a friend as a "landlord" I woul dhave been climbing the walls. Three months without rent. It's a very long time when you're worrying.

*nods* Oh I know it.

When I was 20 I worked in a clothes shop. The week before I turned 21 (as predicted by myself and another girl) he 'let me go' because as he put it, there wasn't enough work to justify three regular assistants. I was the senior one, I was keyholder and opened up in the morning, but, at 21 I gained certain emloyment rights that I hadn't had before.

On my 21st birthday I received notification from the benefits agency that as I had been 'fired for misconduct' I was not entitled to unemployment benefits or rent assistance.

The power of the employer in that circumstance is incredible. His power extends beyond your employment with him.

I was fortunate enough to have a partner who intervened. He 'explained' to Vash why he should revise his statement to the job centre. Even so, it took a little over 8 weeks for the personal benefit to come through and about 13 weeks for the rent.

Weeeelll... that's the flip side of giving people all these guarantees and extensive rights and whatnot--people will go out of their way to avoid honoring them. We don't give 21-year-olds (or anyone) special employment rights here (I assume you're talking about required vacation time, or something along those lines?), and one consequence is no one has ever been fired for turning 21.

I read a very detailed article awhile back about how finding employment as a woman in the UK was actually much, much harder than in the US, because of the extensive maternity benefits employers are required to provide. It talked about how it was common practice to remove your wedding ring for an interview, and that while it was technically illegal, many employers required agreements from new female employees that they were not going to get pregnant. That would never happen here, because maternity benefits are much more moderate, and employers don't take a huge hit from providing them. There are drawbacks to every system.

You are SO fired! ;)

Heh. Thanx. It took you long enough...sign here please....;)

So in the UK they forced an added expense upon an employer and it created LESS opportunity. Hmmm, very interesting.

Well, the rules have changed somewhat since i was 21 :P

At the time, if you were under 21, you basically had no employment rights. At 21, you became covered by adult employment rights. A lot of those rights were eroded under the Thatcher government, and then reinstated by Labour, things like a minimum wage and minimum holiday rights. Nowadays, if you are under 21, you do have certain employment rights. For example there is a mimimum wage for over 21, a minmum wage for 18-21 years and a mimimum wage for 16-18 year olds.

Currently there is a campaign to take away the age grading on wages. If you do a job, you should get paid for that job the same if you are male, as female, the same if you are old as young, the same if you are black as white.

The problem wasn't that I acquired rights at 21. The problem was that I had no rights prior to that. The answer isn't to remove rights from adult workers, it's to instate them for younger workers. That way employers have no legal loophole for paying people shit wages or not allowing holidays.

No. We just make them part-time employees so they don't get the normal benefits. Wally World is famous for this.

Unscrupulous employers will often find ways of circumventing systems put in place to protect the workforce.

Colbert assigns Obama a new religion:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...lama-surya-das

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
Wow 100 million over the internet. Thats a hell of a lot of money.

meh
 

I don't think her daughter being pregnant means she's a bad mother...
Girls get pregnant.
This may be a suprise to you, but... it happens from having sex! I'm sure most of you here have done that before.

I got pregnant, I could have used a mother around.
A lot.
Instead I had a father who hit me and thought date rape was a right earned by guys with dates stupid enough to drink. Hah.

I think the fact Palin's advertising herself as a family person and won't put her campaign on hold when her daughter could probably use a mother in her life more than ever makes me question how devoted a mother she is... and if that's her selling point to the average american idiot, she's got some worries to worry about.

I've said before, and I still feel that I admire the Palin family for sticking to their morals. They are different than mine, but I admire a consistent message.

Of course the difference is that I don't believe I have the right to insist they follow my system of beliefs. I sincerely believe that following a path of abstinance through your teens is more likely to result in pregnancy than using contraceptives. Because I believe that teens are pretty likely to have sex. You can't have it both ways. You can't rail against the wickedness of sex education and readily available birth control and say this is what pushes teens into sexual activity, and then when a well-raised child gets pregnant call other people hypocrites because - gasp - they've had sex too.

I honestly think if America could throw away the bible, they'd be far better off. But of course I am biased on that point :)

Heehee, I heard a new one last night, someone called Palin "Bible Spice."

I agree that her daughter being pregnant has no relevance to any of this, except for perhaps as SG pointed out you can't deny birth control to teenagers and believe that to make bc readily available is the same as saying "go, be free, have sex!"

Palin is a strong woman, and has strong convictions. I admire that. However, her morals are not mine, and I don't want them imposed on me. That does not make me evil.

As they say "Keep your laws off my body."