Well, there is a 4 part series on our Channel 4 called "The Fairy Jobmother" (available on freeview of the unemployed, as well as on SKY
).
Each week, she runs a job club where long term benefit claimants are helped to change their attitudes and prepare themselves to shine at job interviews. She has a pretty good success rate in getting the majority of participants a job each week, and these are people who thought there was "no chance" for them, and gave up trying.
The idea is to show people how to get moving before they are pushed by the changes. Those who move first will have the advantage over those who hang on until they are pushed.
If such schemes were available to everybody on benefits, the number of unfilled vacancies would be nearly zero. The problem is that the aim is NOT to get people into jobs, but to cut the costs of the system. Running intensive job club schemes for all long term claimants will end up costing MORE than continuing the handouts.
The prime minister has said that the aim of the new rules is that you will NEVER be better off on benefits than working. He just has to deliver this.
Every claimant of every non-working benefit is going to have their case reviewed under the new criteria, and this will even include ME in the next few years. I was signed off on medical grounds "for life" in 2000 under the old rules, but the NEW rules have different criteria regarding whether someone can or cannot work, and what type of work they can and cannot do.
I may well end up having a second career, and if it pays £100 a week, I will start being better off than if not working. Even a "McJob" pays more than this, so it seems likely that the promise made by the PM is deliverable in theory.
I could even create my own job, something many casino affiliates do, although not necessarily all do well, and with a good ethical attitude.
The system also has a system of benefits designed to make part-time and low paid work more palatable, although this raises the argument as to whether the taxpayer should be subsidising private businesses by allowing them to pay less than a living wage, and expect the state to top it up for them.
The problem of "dignity" that makes people say some jobs are "beneath them" is related to the PAY for these jobs, rather than their value to society. This leads to jobs that are REALLY important to the functioning of our modern way of life having a very low social standing, yet jobs that no-one would notice not being done have a very HIGH social standing because they pay well, and allow the employees to mix with others of a high social standing.
Examples.
1) Refuse. Would we notice if all the binmen, sewer workers, etc all stopped work?
These jobs often have the lowest social standing, and relatively low rates of pay.
Other jobs such as cleaning and caring for others also fit into this category.
2) The city high flyer who designes complicated financial instruments that can either create money out of thin air, or bankrupt the planet.
They are paid well, and when they are doing well have a high social standing. When they screw up, do they lose their OWN money?
If we just had "normal" banks, those that only dealt with money that actually exists somewhere, would our lives be WORSE for it.
The problem is that SOMEBODY has to do the lower class jobs, and the current social class system is what deters people from seeing such jobs as worthwhile contributions to society.
Not only does the system need to change, but attitudes to jobs and class need to change so that people are judged by the value of what they do for the rest of us, rather than what they are paid to do it.
The HIGHEST social standing should be given to those who work for charitable enterprises, doing work that the state is not prepared to fund, and often for NOTHING.