Summations Only

How good are the government benefits? Are the unpaid workers able to afford housing, food, and clothing of livable standard?Is the unpaid work compulsory?Gaining experience is great, but everyone still needs to be able to afford a place to live, food, and clothing at an absolute minimum. And if the work is compulsory...it stinks of an attempt to create a "slave" class.But if the work is voluntary as a means to gain experience, and the social safety net is sufficient to guarantee the unpaid workers livable conditions, then my only concern would be whether unpaid positions would be costing existing paid jobs.The difference I suppose could be rapped up as whether the policy is part of a program to legitimately provide the means to allow the unemployed to improve their lives (with real, measured success), or whether the policy exists solely to prey upon their misfortune and desperation.

Hey Straggler,Even though you're sitting out, I'm going to ask again for just a bit more info, as I don't know many of the details of this "free work" issue or the social safety net across the pond.Is this unpaid labor voluntary or compulsory?Is the social safety net sufficient to guarantee a minimally acceptable standard of living for the unemployed?Involuntary unpaid labor rather screams "slavery." Voluntary unpaid labor is just "volunteering," which doesn't seem to be much of a problem in principle, except that in this case the purpose seems to be exclusively to take advantage of the misfortunes of a rather desperate class of people.

So we're not just talking about "unpaid work for the unemployed," like volunteering.We're talking about taking the absolute most desperate class of citizens, and compelling them to work, without pay, under threat of homelessness and starvation.That is slavery, plain and simple.The notion that these workers are somehow "compensated" through "gaining work experience" is an obvious post-hoc rationalization.This is nothing more than a work-around for minimum wage laws and a boon for the corporations that "hire" these individuals. The state pays the unemployment benefits, not the corporations, and the state-provided benefits seem to amount to below minimum wage; if the state were to hire these people at minimum wage to do the same jobs in lieu of unemployment benefits, the workers would make more money, yes?In the US, unemployment benefits eventually expire. Is that also true in the UK? Because if you also allow the clock to keep ticking on the benefits while your slaves work for free, that's even worse exploitation, as they'll wind up homeless and starving even with compliance.That's the sort of thing that leads to violent uprisings. When the poor are starving, they'll eat the rich, and all that.

Not by those for whom they work. And not at minimum wage or higher. Yes...except they are not compelled to perform specific work, and they are protected by employment laws that this policy at least partially seeks to circumvent.I see where you're coming from...but it simply begs the question: why not just hire them to do the same work? If they are hired, they no longer need unemployment benefits as they're no longer unemployed. They would be paid by the actual entity benefiting from their labor. The government could easily provide a tax break or subsidy for hiring unemployed individuals if necessary.There's simply no rational reason for this sort of program to exist other than to exploit the unemployed and desperate. There are plenty of ways to incentivise hiring, even for menial jobs; profit need not entirely come from sales, tax breaks and subsidies can improve the bottom line just as easily. It's a form of forced labor that exclusively targets the poor and desperate, threatens them with immanent starvation and homelessness, unless they perform uncompensated labor. They are not, for some reason, simply hired as regular employees to perform the same labor, and the only possible consequence of such a thing is exploitation. This moral dilemma seems fairly simple, to me. I;m confused as to why you believe the exploitation of the poor is somehow justifiable.Allow me to propose a different solution: massive public works. Hire the unemployed to perform menial labor for the state, things like city beautification or road construction or simple data entry. Pay them at least minimum wage. Set up publicly subsidized housing for low-income individuals and families that is affordable at minimum wage.One could even modify the policy slightly and reach an ethical solution: hire the unemployed as interns in their chosen field, paying them at least minimum wage with the same benefits as above, paid for via tax stimulus or subsidy. The corporations essentially still get free labor, paid for by the state, the "unemployed" become "employed" and receive all of the protections of employment law including minimum wage, and gain relevant experience in their chosen field of employment.The problem is that the policy under discussion is explicitly designed to circumvent employment law, to allow "compensation" below minimum wage while still compelling labor. That is quite plainly exploitation of the poor, and is so obviously unethical it defies comprehension that you should see it otherwise. The state sufficiently benefits by having lower unemployment that this is not a concern. Compensate the employers through tax breaks and subsidies.