Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I have to go to work every day or I don't get paid...
really terrible idea
apart from the fact that it's a ridiculous waste of everyone's time and will increase the workload considerably for people who are already incredibly stretched, including creating considerable extra work for a family member who actually does work for JC+.
Unless everyone can walk easily to a Job Centre it's fairly ridiculous. It's also going to need to have some kind of sickness allowance or else they'll simultaneously cripple the GPs and/or spread sickness.
the round trip, queue and signing on could take upwards of two hours in someone's day. if this is a single parent they may only have 6 hours or so of time in the day to focus their job search (the time their children are at school). to get them to give up over a third of their day on this totally arbitrary measure is so fucking backward
to make being on job seekers such a stressful and unpleasant experience you stop being on it.
Having been on it myself a few times of the years (for shortish periods) it's def gone that way from going in once every two weeks to every week with the occasionaly saturday morning just to check your paper work/bank acounts/passport to make sure you're not cheating, nothing to do with finding work at all.
and I didn't get my full points about it being a bad idea across.
There are too many things to consider which would cost as much as they'd hope to save. I suppose I can see where they're coming from, but it falls into the old 'all jobless people are lazy scroungers' stereotype which is not fair.
If you think these people exist, go directly after them you stupid tory cunts.
pointless government bureacracy they're always talking about
on my way to work in my ivory tower
I'd like to know more about the sort of volunteer stuff we're seeing here vs. the New Deal in the US. Mainly because the New Deal was definitely taught to us as a good thing. That it put people back in work even though a lot of those jobs were really pointless. Was it just that there was no welfare state back then? Or has it mostly been portrayed as good in retrospect?
but I was under the impression there was a lot of superflous projects encompassed in the New Deal almost as a matter of policy, but that they involved paid work
You were definitely not under that impression.
It's like when someone says they don't want a birthday gift
Never correct me.
with the sheer volume of people coming in they wont be able to... y'know make sure people are looking for work, or aid them in finding work which is the main purpose of the Job Center in the first place. They just need to be stricter enforcing the rules they currently have in place, it's too easy to cheat the system right now.
are they doing it just for the sake of getting them out the house or do they think this will actually better their chances of finding employment?
if it's the former then why don't they make everyone do something useful instead like community service or something?
without knowing or understanding anything about it (lol) it sounds like loads of hassle for no real reason
while pretending that 2.5million people can fit into 0.5million jobs
is to play to HARD WORKING FAMILIES' feelings of bitterness and anger
rather than to reduce public spending overall or to actually gain full employment (obviously the government knows the numbers unemployed far exceeds jobs available). Policies like this mean members of the 'reserve army' of cheap labour have to accept jobs with absolutely shit pay and conditions. The government knows this policy is in the best interests of capital.
Each generation has to fight the same battles again, you have to fight to keep the rights that you have inherited.
People should be throwing eggs and rotten tomatoes at these idiots that bring us back to the world of the underserving poor and the scare-tactics of victimising the underclass.
I'm not surprised.
I read the thread title and the link url. what more do you want from me
Covers a lot of things mentioned in the thread.
It's mostly about how charities are wholesale failing to help the government take the piss.
Here's a question for you, though: "According to the Government, there are 600,000 job vacancies at any given time." So we can only presume the Government thinks these jobs are valid for the 200,000 long term unemployed they're trying to 'help'. Why bother with this tedious bullshit and all the admin, then? Why not just force them to take those jobs?
when I was unemployed in my home town. And 3 hours per day when I could have been applying for jobs. Fairly ridiculous scheme, as I don't really see how having people in the office every day will help them get jobs at all. Incentives to volunteer aren't such a bad idea though.
someone under 25 on JSA gets about £57 per week. A weekly rider in Cambridge is about £26 per week. It's pretty-much impossible to live in Cambridge if you don't work, so you have no choice but to live in the villages and commute in.
so it's for the long term unemployed - so if you've been out for over 3 years i think, and it's only if you don't join up to a training scheme or a voluntary work scheme. i'm not saying it's GREAT but, 3 years is a long time to be out of work, i sure as hell would have just given up by that point, i wouldn't be applying to any jobs at all, so maybe it's not too bad (as long as it doesn't catch people physically / mentally unable to work )
Get discarded if it's for the long term unemployed?
write a response to every point raised
and they don't get disregarded, and tbh i'm not sure why you'd think that those points do get disregarded really.
not sure you'd think that i think those points would get disregarded
Lots of people have raised problems with the policy. To which it is then said, 'guys it's for people who have been unemployed for years' to which I say, so what's the difference?
Couldn't see what the cut off would be. If it's that length of time then I think it's fair enough.
Would probably be better to just examine each of those cases individually to try and find the reason why though. Health etc.
"The latest rules apply to the 200,000 or so toughest cases – the one in 30 claimants who has been out of work for three years or more."
the job centre was absolutely the most depressing place I've ever been in.
Cannot imagine how terrible it would be to have to go there every day.
Was just writing this:
"This would be a complete waste of time. A policy designed to appease people who think that everyone signing on is trying to con money out of the government because they are lazy - nothing to do with actual practicalities."
But then realised that it's for long term unemployed. Will still cause more problems than it will solve.
I used to have to wait two hours to see someone at the job centre because they were understaffed.
It's still demonising those who are out of work, suggesting that they're all just lazy.
in signing on the other half. Long term unemployment slashed.
It's all about monitoring the public, we're simply human capital with one stockholder - the market. Constantly tracked, never settled. One day they'll simply put us in electronic dog collars.
It's not even about the ideology of getting everyone in work, they know that's basically impossible, it's about setting barriers of control. And it's never getting better.
But that's fucking stupid.
What should happen to the completely unemployable?
Through my work I have met people who pretty much could never hold down a job due to personality traits that don't qualify as a disability. For instance; terrible time keeping, non-existent short-term memory, poor interpersonal skills, easily distracted, borderline illiterate, innumerate, extremely poor diction, physically unfit to do basic menial tasks and completely computer illiterate.
This government appears to be pursuing an overall policy that makes people with the traits, unable to receive and benefits by making welfare claims more and more onerous.
Not sure what the endgame is. These people subsist from help from others? The buck up and sort themselves out? They starve to death?
poor interpersonal skills, illiterate, innumerate - training, which is an option under this new scheme?
no idea on the others. probably the latter...
Or reasons for people being unemployed?
of otherwise genuinely problematic character traits that should indeed be viewed with a greater degree of understanding.
Or just, for whatever reason, ways arrive late. Often it's linked to mental health issues that the government would never seem dibilitating.
Have terrible time keeping for whatever reason = nah, come on. Everything else on the list up there is completely fair and makes sense as traits that need care and attention. If you turn being crap at turning up on time into a mental health issue, that's going down a road of every negative trait being one.
Saw the same people each week who had absolutely no chance of finding work, let alone something that was in any way worthwhile and not exploitative short-term demeaning rubbish.
I don't think any politicians have illusions that they can get everyone into work, for me this is really about making the public more obedient and satisfying populist frustrations.
One can only shout at a bin for so long
She basically just said random words until they gave up and moved onto something else.
it seemed that they want to make long term unemployed do something of vague worth (cleaning canals, war memorials, helping on city farms, that kind of thing) or sign on every day to discuss how to get into long term employment. I can half see the point behind it, but the problem with all these simplistic "make the unemployed clean the streets" ideas is how you actually implement it. There are people we already pay to clean streets, are they out of a job? Are they promoted to overseeing these hundreds of newly qualified street sweepers and war memorial scrubbers? How is the whole thing administered? And what happens when the inevitable happens and a large chunk of people do not or cannot do these menial tasks and are forced to job centres every day to sign on for no reason at all and clog the place up?
if you had people who actually had a clue implementing it. Theres plenty of room for improvement basically. You dont get 10 people to do the job one person used to do. You get 10 people to do something that one person is struggling to do or that no one is doing. I have no idea what that is but im sure you could find people who do. Its not like we live in a utopia.
but reality is quite different. Even trying to find someone who has a clue about implementing such a scheme is a challenge in itself. Then we could just sit back and wait for the inevitable fuckup which costs even more and has even less effect than people just sitting in their pants and signing on every two weeks. That is why schemes like this are easy to dream up but rarely ever see the light of day.
If someone can make it work though and we have hordes of jobless underclass scrubbing the streets and doffing their caps to us worthy employed people though - good luck to them.
Get, idk, £300 a week for signing something every day. Spend the other 23 hours 58 minutes each day gambling, smoking, drinking cider, watching MTV Base and shoplifting.
I've got a big car in the driveway and a flatscreen tv.
don't even think they make tvs that aren't flatscreen anymore but people always say it as if its not completely standard. same with iphones. my mums always going on about how her patients don't have any money but they all have iphones.
think people must all read the same hand guide on how to shame the unemployed and it involves using the exact words "big car", "flatscreen tv", "my hard earned wages" and "tax payer".
and it's because I spent two fucking years paying for it. People are daft.
is called the sun
It doesn't make any sense why you're not.