M
milf2be
Guest
i did voluntary work for red cross from the age of 16-18 whilst i was doing my a levels. during those few years (doing things about once a month) i:
did my first aid training
went on to do peer education teaching first aid, sex ed etc. (and won an award for it)
worked with young carers
did first aid at big events
designed leaflets and business cards they actually went on to use
worked in the shop
helped with a float at the local carnival/parade
started learning how to drive an ambulance.
i found all of that exciting, entertaining and rewarding. definitely not slave labour. i learnt some excellent skills and i had a good time doing it.
i dont see how it is any different from people going to work, im sure a lot of people are forced to go to work even though they dont want to because they couldnt afford to live otherwise. i dont see how its any different.
what do people think if they were only made to work a few hours a week? say jsa is £67.50, minimum wage is £6.08, so what if they worked 11 hours a week?
also, what if it were for proper charities instead of big companies? so like red cross, cancel research, RSPCA etc.?
and isn't the government supposed to be helping little and new businesses? couldn't people volunteer to help the businesses out then as the business got bigger it could hire those people?
But you CHOSE to do that, it wasn't a condition of getting enough money to live. I actually think most charities wouldn't want these people who, lets face it, would not want to actually be there. I also think that most charities would not be able to administer it unless the govt suddenly came up with a whole load of money to pay for the extra man hours/jobs that would be needed for supervising unwilling workers.
but it had a big impact on me getting a place at uni, to be able to study, to get a job, that i have to do to be able to live.
no people probably wouldn't want to be there at first, but maybe after time they would start enjoying it. they would meet new people, make new friends and gain some independence and actually want to work?
yes it probably would cost money at first, but surely it would save money in the long run? also creating more jobs cant be a bad thing.i cant say its a straight forward thing, but im sure when the nhs was started that wasn't cheap or straight forward either.
people who have jobs dont wake up at 6/7/8 in the morning and think "ooh guess what i really want to do today: leave my family and go empty some bins" (sorry there's a bin lorry going past the window ) but they HAVE to to be able to live. how should it be any different for people on benefits?
double standards if you ask me
also, i cant see any person that actually wants to work, turning down the opportunity to get out the house and learn some new skills and add something to their CV.
if they dont, well....they really dont want to work do they?