Welcome George Jetson, can I remind you however many enjoy those menial jobs?
We should grow in to this century not the last, national service is built up as a good thing I fail to see this.
Lets look at what can be done not what always has been.
Welfare has many different forms.
Unemployment, let rebuild it refocus on it.
Say 5 different parts.;
Young unemployed get a job, maybe in private enterprise in training or as public service.
Basic wages unless it is clear it is forever then wages based on performance.
Older harder to find work people full time work of benefit to us all.
Other jobs similar groups are found.
If we take, and why not?, the savings in offices and staff in to account we can fund it.
Think out side that box, walking trail around Australia, camps and picnic areas.
It can be done leave, to find a full time job ,paid on request.
If we stop and consider it would not be long before the shortage of unemployed proved it worked.
We must not think it is wrong to work for your supper

Hello Belly and thank you for your welcome.

Regarding menial jobs, it is my experience that most people do not enjoy doing them but do them nonetheless for the income. On the other hand, just because most don't like them does not mean that we can get rid of those jobs as yet. Ridding humanity of menial work is a work in progress. So, if an unemployed person is directed towards menial work as part of there work benefits qualification, they must accept the work, find their own work or accept non payment as a consequence of their choices.

This program suggested as I understand it, would have employers of many kinds on the govt. books who satisify insurance and work safe criteria. It would be the employer who would hire and fire those on work benefits and the govt who would administer and pay for the program. It would be very easy to set up an auto interface between employer and centrelink which records hours of work and pays for that work up to the cut off threshhold. The auto program could also quite easily determine the amount of hours required of the unemployed person according to their payment entitlement. Not all people on newstart receive the full payment because of income and assets. If that income is derived from wages then they should be exempted from the work program since they are already working. If that income is derived from self employment, then those customers should be referred immediately to the new enterprise incentive scheme, which itself should be broadened to include established businesses of the self employed. Clearly, if you are self employed and in need of welfare because you are not generating profit or not enough profit, then you need more than welfare payments, you need a business mentor. Finally, those who are on reduced payments because of the asset test or income not derived from wages (i.e. rental income) should be exempt from the work requirements if their payment is less than $100 per week

continued...

I do not support the idea of a work benefit being paid according to productivity bonuses or work performance increase. It should only be the minimum wage as this would ensure that such people seek their own work, being employed in their own right with all the benefits which come from that.

I am against forcing young, middling and older adults into short training courses. It happens already with many doing courses irrelevent to their work ambitions or their personal preferences. Certainly it is a great way of hidding the real numbers who are unemployed, but in doing so we also deny free will. Free will is more important than fudged statistics. Ultimately, if a person wants to study or train, the decision should be theirs and theirs alone. The most a state should offer in matters of study and training is advice, opportunity and in welfare cases, study subsidies.

I would address the other points you have made, however your short hand style I find difficult to understand. Sorry about that. I am interested in your ideas though and would very much appreciate your expanding on the short hand brief.

The reason why I would exempt those who are working but underemployed is so that employers cannot take advantage of the work benefits program. It could very well happen that an employer, having secured an excellent work benefits candidate, would want to increase that persons hours. Just say for example that the employer asks that person if they wanted an extra days work. That would mean that the tax payer and employer are sharing the costs of a position which really exists and is not merely existing for the sake of work benefits. Why pay for three days out of gross profit when you need only pay for 1.5 days (income test applied) with the govt paying the rest?

It should also be the case that if a part time or casual employee in need of welfare is working less than 2 days per week, then it must happen that their employer is offered the option of converting that work to the work benefit scheme so that the unemployed do not rort the system. If acceptable to the employer, and why wouldn't it be since they wouldn't have to pay the wages, that welfare customer then does the two days work and all is equitable within the welfare system. For example, when it became widely known by long term unemployed that income affecting newstart disqualifies a person from the Work for the Dole program, even if that affected payment is reduced by only 50 cents, many of the long term unemployed found cash in hand work of $63 per fortnight. Their payments were affected by a matter of cents, they were no longer required to participate in Work for the Dole and centrelink could not follow up on the cash in hand employement having to accept their word in good faith.

I think i understood Bellys version better.

What did you not understand?