... wrote on May 30
th, 2013 at 8:29am:
Simple dam question kat, not "trolling"- IF the well-off have an obligation to help those less well-off (as is the frequently claimed here) what obligation do the less well off have in return?
They'll contribute when they get jobs doesn't cut it - what if they never get one? What if the one they do get pays too poo to contribute? Would you loan $10,000 to someone who's only guarantee was "I'll pay ya back when I can?"
It's a general warning before things get out-of-hand, nothing more.
I had no-one specifically in mind, but I want to avoid the abuse and BS that goes on upstairs.
As to your question, I did post early in the thread that I have no issue with the unemployed being obliged to 'give back'
in some way.
But, as I also stated, WfD isn't the answer unless there is a training component involved. Actually, owing to the fact that
many unemployed will need to re-skill in order to find work, there should be some sort of training involved in any 'mutual
obligation' program or activity. And not necessarily for low-end, menial or entry-level jobs. These people are not stupid or
uneducated, and they shouldn't be treated as such. If someone loses a job as a teacher or accountant, for example, then
it's not going to benefit him by training him to use a shovel, or forcing him to attend adult-literacy courses.
Putting people to work doing manual labour with hand-tools (no machinery), just as they did 100 years ago, really does
help no-one. They come off the program with no more skills than they held going in, and with no better prospects of getting
work. All they end up with is an, in some ways justified, dislike and mistrust of the system.
Volunteer work is another way they could 'give back', I know a few who do just that. Charities and non-profit organisations
are always crying out for volunteers, so send the unemployed, and slip them a decent supplement for doing so. $20/fn extra
is laughable, it doesn't even cover their fares and lunch.
Generally speaking, I do not feel that the Govt has been upholding
its end of mutual obligation.
Anyway, I hope that goes some way to answering your question, maybe you or others can come up with some other ideas?
Kat.
Good work. I too would like to see some form of training be required, not necssarily occupation specific. I think many people would get the most value out of a course in interview skills, becasue that's where their problem lies. There are plenty of jobs that don't require any pre-existing qualifications, but they just don't go to people who interview poorly. Take warrigal - he might have the fantastic skills and experience that he says he does, but I wouldn't hire him, becasue his attitude is terrible.
Anyway, bottom line is I expect some commitment to undertakings that improve their chances. I want o ensure that they are at least taking some steps towards providing for themselves.
Forum
Pages: 
