@nevynreally wrote:
@bella_again wrote:
I don't disagree that experience in the right setting leads to enrichment of skills, however what I don't understand is why we think unemployed people don't have skills. I have known unemployed people with PHD's and degrees, who have struggled to find employment in their fields. Unemployment knows no barriers, it can affect anyone at anytime. I think we need to look at meaningful ways to engage people but lets not have the stick approach, let's keep people's mental health and self esteem intact in the process. That way we will have better outcomes long term. As such we need a multi faceted approach, looking at lots of different ways to enable people to effectively engage in their community.
I think as a society we need to stop boxing people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in this category, far too many people don't seem to be able to relate to those going through difficult times and needing assistance.
I don't disagree with the first part of your post. My point was never about those who want to work, but about those who have decided they can't have one, for what ever reason and that's good enough to get the benefits.
Remove the deadbeats and allow those who want to shine, shine.
So what are we suggesting here? That those who have skills and are no t'deadbeats' we leave alone and allow them to continue to collect the dole? Cause they are not really a problem after all as they have skills and will eventually find jobs.
But the absolute deadbeats (lazy, good for nothing, some drug affected, many with social issues etc) we force into employment sectors to make life difficult for those having to work with them and possibly be a danger to the community who need those services to run professionally and safely?
And how does the government employee sitting behind a phone/counter disguinguish a 'deadbeat' from someone with potential to determine who is who ?
ogQ!(U~$(KGrHgoOKjYEjlLmS1ctBJ1K-4Uyh!~~_7.JPG?set_id=81 "i-need-a-martini"){kind=avatar}
