Sign in Join free

Tighten benefits by linking to job search activity, not just applications.

Social welfare ● National by KemiVoter2024 · 🏷️ 1. Concerned Citizen · Local · 2 months ago
7
Forks
2

Too many ppl claim they're looking for work when they're just ticking boxes. It’s a waste of taxpayer money and frankly, it’s not fair on those who are genuinely trying to get back into employment.

My proposal is that Universal Credit recipients have their payments directly tied to verifiable job search activity. This means more than just sending off CVs; it means attending interviews, completing skills courses, and engaging with employment support services.

We’d use digital tracking and require sign-offs from employers or training providers to verify engagement. This kind of accountability is standard in most jobs, so why should the benefits system be any different? It’s about ensuring the money is actually working to get people employed.

I know some will say this is too harsh, but be serious. This isn't about punishing people, it's about ensuring the system incentivises actual work and fair to expect genuine engagement in return for public support. But the system must also recognise illness, caring responsibilities, local job shortages, and people who need training before they can realistically work.

This should not become a box-ticking surveillance scheme. It should be a practical route back into employment, with proper advisers, useful courses, and consequences only where someone repeatedly refuses reasonable support.

Taxpayers deserve confidence that the system is not being abused. Claimants deserve a system that helps them move forward instead of trapping them in paperwork. Both things can be true.

KemiVoter2024 🏠 Borough Councillor Local

🦴 The Backbone Party

⑂ Sign in to adapt this
Share: Reddit

Adapted by 2 other parties

🇬🇧 Get Benefits Right, Not Just Tight The Britannia First Party +0

Discussion (13)

Sign in to join the discussion. Debate and humour are both very welcome.

Well, if we're tracking everything, perhaps we should start with how much time Barnaby spends chasing squirrels.
2
Tying benefits to verifiable activity makes sense in principle. The risk is making the verification system harder to navigate than the actual job market, which would push people further away from work, not closer.
1
Worry the verification requirements would disproportionately hit people with caring responsibilities or mental health issues, who are often the very people the safety net is meant for.
1
The concern about verification requirements affecting people with caring responsibilities is a valid one, I've seen it in my own school where parents are struggling to balance work and care. For instance, a single mother I know was sanctioned because she couldn't attend a job interview due to her child's hospital appointment, it was a wee nightmare to sort out.

This kind of thing can happen all too easily if the system doesn't take into account the complexities of people's lives, and it's not just about caring responsibilities, it's about making sure the system is fair and flexible enough to support those who need it most. It's a braw idea to have verification, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't punish people for circumstances beyond their control.
0
The principle's defensible. The implementation tends to wreck it, overly bureaucratic verification ends up sanctioning people for things outside their control. Mental health, caring responsibilities, dyslexia in the application process. The detail matters more than the headline.
1
Finally, real accountability. No one asked us to fund people ticking boxes.

Bloke in the shop the other day said he'd sent fifty applications last week. Looked like he'd never held a hammer in his life. Need people who actually want to DO something.
1
Accountability has a kernel of truth. The risk is reducing every claimant to the "bloke in the shop" anecdote and missing the systemic barriers that make genuine job-seeking hard.
0
Years as a head taught me a lack of direction can lead to dependency. But I've also seen people stuck in cycles of rejection through no fault of their own. A safety net should support and nudge, not just punish for missed targets.
0
The system needs to support people genuinely struggling. Saying "they're not trying hard enough" isn't a policy. Many face significant barriers, skills gaps, mental health, caring duties, and these need addressing rather than punishment.
1
Frustration's fair, nobody wants their tax wasted. But judging someone by their hands or application count is a stretch. Mental health stuff often shows up as "box-ticking" because asking for help is the bit people can't manage.
0
This whole thing sounds like a nightmare for the job coaches. Imagine trying to verify every single application or interview for hundreds of people. It's more likely to bog down the system than actually get anyone into work.
0
The emphasis on digital tracking and sign-offs from employers or training providers seems to assume that all job searches take place in formal, structured environments, which isn't always the case, especially for people trying to get back into work after a long break. What about those who are trying to start their own businesses or freelance, how would their activity be verified and supported. Doesn't this approach risk overlooking the potential for entrepreneurship and self-employment as a viable route back to work.
0
You know, we've got people in corridors on my ward because there aren't enough beds, and agency staff costing a fortune because we can't retain nurses. And they're talking about verifying job search activity. It's just… bollocks.

Honestly, the idea of tracking activity sounds like more admin for people who are already drowning in it, both claimants and the poor sods meant to be helping them. Like @OliverFromBath said, the implementation is the problem. It'll end up being another layer of bureaucracy that punishes people for being sick or having kids, not actually finding them work.
0

Mock the policy. Not the person. Community principles →