Printable View
One man's account:
http://www.exfashionista.co.uk/2011/...ers-allowance/
No doubt you guys will have many insightful tips on how to avoid these problems, but I hope one or two of you might still be able to agree with me that some of this hard-earned knowledge belongs on the syllabus for any "prospective citizens" course.
What a pathetic whining dole-bludger. Nearly 2 years sponging off the state because he's took good to get a job in any industry rather than "his" industry. Any job should be better than no job.
Then crying about having to "sign in" every 2 weeks? That's all, you turn up for a "demoralising" meeting and then don't have to for another fortnight? Suck it up, going to work can be demoralising too - getting money for producing absolutely nothing is not something to be demoralised over.
After 18 months of sucking the taxpayer dry apparently people are left in a situation where they "end up looking for jobs" there every day rather than at home? And that's a bad thing? Call me ignorant, but it seems to me that actually looking for work rather than watching TV at home is what'll lead to actually getting a job.
The section on Tesco's is a lie, pure and simple. There is much documentary evidence on this very subject.
Then after people have spent nearly two years as parasites off the state its a problem that people "take any job that they are offered as a means to escape it"? They should be doing that from day one! Whatever happened to this little thing called self-respect?
And going on about "resentment and anger" of people living off the hard work of others for years. Give me a break, zero sympathy.
Kind of curious why the retail example mentioned that the lady had dropped a CV off in "every clothing store in Westfield" - why not "every store in Westfield"? Are the others not good enough for her?
Want sympathy, or want to know what is really demoralising? Try working 14 hours in a day and then having half of your income taken away from you to provide for those not doing anything. Or try being one of the millions of people who already work a full-time job but their post-tax income doesn't provide enough for their family so end up taking a second job just to make ends meet - with every single penny of the second job being taxed (no tax-free allowance on second jobs) to pay for those doing zero jobs. Try working Full Time even on just Minimum Wage and realising a large slice of your "minimum" amount is needed in tax to pay for those who aren't bothered about working. Don't attend one meeting a fortnight and get money for doing jack shit and expect any sympathy from me. If you have any dignity, try providing for yourself and maybe consider taking "any job" beneath you to do so, rather than expecting others to do so on your behalf.
PS I find it interesting that this guy who so hates the New Deal as it makes those who haven't worked for 18 months actually want a job (shock, horror) FINALLY got himself a job after 18 months and before 2 years. Coincidence or not? Seems like we should be drawing lessons about positives from the New Deal then even if it hurts the feelings of societies leeches.
I see Randy already stated many of the straw men I was about to humorously propose.
I too have personally seen many people failed by the 'system' I ostensibly support as a HORRID OBUMMER SOCIALIST what have you. I think part of it has to do with the compromises inherent in any parliamentary system, where the Right demands the creation of a Kafkaesque monstrosity in order to circularly demonstrate the faults with the Left.
Fundamentally the question is a structural one. So long as people like Randy demand labour extracted from people as justification of their worth, there is nothing to be done; we must humiliate and denigrate everyone not paying dividend to City.
He was paying into the state for more than two years as a higher rate tax player, so has obviously contributed far more than the pittance job-seekers allowance pays you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
JSA (and free Council Tax and everything else claimed for) is far from a pittance. Besides, although the police budget IS a pittance compared to the welfare budget, like education is too - there are these other sorts of things that actually need paying for too so shouldn't mean a sense of entitlement to benefits rather than being humiliated by being made to feel like you should take a job after 18 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...diture.svg.png
Welfare expenditure is more than 5 times public order or defence expenditure, more than double education.
As a manager of a business that is frequently offering jobs I have a deep-seated hatred for the so-called "Job Centre", based on years of real experiences. I can tell you that the vast, vast majority (maybe 90%) of calls we get from the Job Centre are people who have absolutely zero interest in getting the job, they're applying as they're made to apply as a condition of benefits. About half will do everything they can when you call them back to make it clear (without saying so) they don't want the job, most offered an interview won't even bother to attend the interview and many offered the job won't even start. Be lucky to get 10% of people from Job Centres who really are actually looking for a job - had a recruitment campaign months ago that was uniquely done on the Job Centre for once - got zero recruits from it. Zero.
I've got far more people working for me who applied direct and are doing so as a second job than I do who applied via the job centre.
It's incredible to see people reflexively defending a scheme that is so badly run (and with public funds to boot). I mean, the good outcomes seem to be incidental rather than the result of deliberate good work on the part of those who manage the various parts of the New Deal scheme :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
You got evidence on that? Statistics, facts, that sort of pesky thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Just how much of the "social protection" bucket goes towards job-seeker's allowance?
JSA is just a fraction of what benefit claimants get - as the ungrateful parasite in the OP mentioned he got his Council Tax paid for etc, didn't see any thanks for that though. Until he eventually was made to get off his arse and get a job by actually having to apply for jobs (so horrific I know).
Which of the things you've mentioned in this thread re. the New Deal would you say are deliberate measures (features, not bugs) and to what extent can they be said to contribute to any good outcomes?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
"Pittance" is such a subjective word, let us instead say that higher rate tax payer he would have been paying more in weekly than you get on JSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Why shouldn't he feel a sense of entitlement to benefits provided by a system he's paid so much into over the years? I might share your attitude if this was someone who had never worked and was still all "where's my benefits" and "i'm too good to work at the co-op" but this is someone whose already contributed plenty. To use your words, the state has already sponged plenty off him, why shouldn't he sponge off it for a bit while he gets his shit together?Quote:
there are these other sorts of things that actually need paying for too so shouldn't mean a sense of entitlement to benefits rather than being humiliated by being made to feel like you should take a job after 18 months.
Most of the welfare budget is taken up by housing benefit, child benefit and tax credits. Job seekers is a relatively small component of it.Quote:
Welfare expenditure is more than 5 times public order expenditure.
Probably because it went something like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
But glad to see you defending incompetence and wastefulness on the part of those managing this nonsense :bulb: let me guess, the more of a job-seeker's time and energy you waste, the better, right?Quote:
The biggest issue I had was with Council Tax Benefit. I applied for it and was told that I was not entitled to it. I couldn’t understand how I could not be entitled to it but had no choice but to accept the decision. It didn’t alter the fact that I couldn’t afford to pay it. The situation came to a head when the Council sent me a court date for non-payment. During one of my numerous calls on the subject to the council I was told that the reason I had received a letter saying I was not entitled to Council Tax Benefit was because I had not supplied some of the information they required. This was not stated in the decision letter that they had sent me at the time. I had supplied the information and had a receipt to prove it. It transpired that through human error my information had not reached the relevant person so they rejected my claim. I immediately wrote a letter of complaint providing the aforementioned receipt and requesting my previous application was reviewed. Upon review they back-dated my entitlement and the court action against me was dropped. It made me wonder how often this kind of thing happens and people are unaware, so don’t challenge the decision-making process. I could quite easily have ended up in Court with a CCJ through absolutely no fault of my own.
From the OP's very own incredibly biased and partisan's own language I'll just highlight the features. I don't see any bugs, you can feel free to highlight what you think is a bug as I see none.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I see 14 features, though due to the whiny and rambling nature of it many of those are duplicates to be fair, zero bugs. Feel free to challenge why any of these is anything but a GOOD thing.Quote:
New Deal is a back to work programme that you attend every day (1). Some qualifications are available (2) depending on the area within which you wish to work. New Deal is essentially aimed at people who have little in the way of skills and education (3) as the training provided is at a very basic level. The only thing that was available to me was some Microsoft training in Excel, Access and Word (4). I didn’t really want or need to do it, but it was better than nothing (5). It was completely dis-organised and essentially consisted of me sitting at a computer and ploughing through a work book which was then marked on-line (6). You have to sign a register to show attendance every day (7) but ultimately there isn’t enough to do so people end up either twiddling their thumbs, inventing reasons to leave or being disruptive. The majority of people just end up doing their job search there rather than doing it at home (8), so sit on a computer all day long. For the sake of my sanity I had been doing some Volunteer work prior to commencing New Deal and fortunately this was accepted as part of my working week (9). If I had, had to attend the New Deal Training room every day from 9-5pm (10) like many of my contemporaries did I think I actually would have lost the plot completely. Another aspect of New Deal is work placements (11). There has been much discussion of these work placements in the press recently as essentially people from New Deal are being used by large companies like Tesco (12) as free labour. Very few people are offered full-time positions when their placements cease (13). These are basic, unskilled jobs (14)so I refuse to believe that the people who are sent are unsuitable for permanent employment. The fact is, it is not worth a Company paying them when they can get the next batch of New Deal claimants to work for free.
Again he's a liar. "The biggest issue I had was with Council Tax Benefit. I applied for it and was told that I was not entitled to it. I couldn’t understand how I could not be entitled to it but had no choice but to accept the decision."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
No choice but to accept the decision, again some evidence please. How about scanning and uploading the letter saying that? Because I know that all letters from the Job Centre rejecting anything (for whatever reason) detail an appeals process and say what to do next. That's at least two lies he's made that are demonstrable facts.
And that's just from the bit you quoted :) in light of your recent comments about the dangers of the self-avowed moderates this is actually kinda hilariousQuote:
New Deal is a back to work programme that you attend every day (1). Some qualifications are available (2) depending on the area within which you wish to work. New Deal is essentially aimed at people who have little in the way of skills and education (3) as the training provided is at a very basic level. The only thing that was available to me was some Microsoft training in Excel, Access and Word (4). I didn’t really want or need to do it, but it was better than nothing (5). It was completely dis-organised and essentially consisted of me sitting at a computer and ploughing through a work book which was then marked on-line (6). You have to sign a register to show attendance every day (7) but ultimately there isn’t enough to do so people end up either twiddling their thumbs, inventing reasons to leave or being disruptive. The majority of people just end up doing their job search there rather than doing it at home (8), so sit on a computer all day long. For the sake of my sanity I had been doing some Volunteer work prior to commencing New Deal and fortunately this was accepted as part of my working week (9). If I had, had to attend the New Deal Training room every day from 9-5pm (10) like many of my contemporaries did I think I actually would have lost the plot completely. Another aspect of New Deal is work placements (11). There has been much discussion of these work placements in the press recently as essentially people from New Deal are being used by large companies like Tesco (12) as free labour. Very few people are offered full-time positions when their placements cease (13). These are basic, unskilled jobs (14)so I refuse to believe that the people who are sent are unsuitable for permanent employment. The fact is, it is not worth a Company paying them when they can get the next batch of New Deal claimants to work for free.
Uh, yeah, but if the letter doesn't say "rejected for these specific reasons that are ultimately rooted in our own incompetence" then what good do you think it will do to appeal the decision? Do you think it's a good idea to waste time and energy on a futile appeal? The information he needed he ultimately got by wasting time and energy on the phone with these people. Without that information he would indeed have had little reasonable choice but to accept that decision. Moreover, he was not in the wrong in this case, and the fault of the administrators led to more waste of time, energy and money. How on earth can you defend that? Do you think getting things wrong is desirable? :bulb: Dude, that's just weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
1: How is after 18 months of unemployment being made to get out of the house and attend somewhere that helps you find a job (and provides for no charge facilities to apply for jobs from) a bad thing?
3: Given the vast, vast majority who spend 18+ months of unemployment have little in the way of skills and education, how is providing skills and education to them a bad thing?
3b: Given the very unskilled nature of the people we're dealing with (and skilled people can apply for jobs outside their own area of expertise before 18 months) how is giving basic entry-level skills a bad thing?
5: How is it a bad thing that people who have been literally DOING NOTHING for 18+ months are made to do SOMETHING? Getting back in the habit of actually getting out of the house, waking up in the morning etc is a good thing.
6: How are computers, workbooks etc a bad thing? What better do you expect?
Just after 7: I agree people "twiddling thumbs, inventing reasons to leave or being disruptive" is a bad thing. Of course that also is kind of inevitable if you get together the kind of people who've relied on others to provide for them for more than 18 months by now.
8: How is applying for a job in a supervised area worse than so-called applying for jobs at home? Why the heck are people who've been unemployed for more than 18 months at home? Kind of explains why they've not been able to find one yet.
After 12: The free labour bit is a lie.
13 is a lie. The stats show a very LARGE proportion of people (who bearing in mind have been unemployed for 18 months) are given permanent employment.
14: Basic unskilled jobs are a good thing, what do you expect the long-term unemployed to do? Be rocket scientists, teachers, electricians?
Again final bit is a demonstrable lie again.
He wasted his time eh? Oh boo fucking hoo, did he have somewhere better to be? Like at work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
There is zero evidence to show that adminstrators did anything wrong here. Not seen anything here but he lied about it being final, when he called them they helped and it was sorted in the end. That's your biggest worries? No wonder he couldn't find a job when about 99% of the population manage it no problem in less than 18 months.
Or maybe looking for work? Or maybe just not being unnecessarily bothered? How old are you man? Why is it that you actually want people to be bullied and harrassed? I mean, seriously, do you think it's a good thing? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well there's his word that they admitted it was due to human error after he proved to them that he had in fact sent in the required information. I mean, sure, he might be lying, dirty scumbag that he is. You should mail him to ask for proof eg. scanned documents. I really think you shouldQuote:
There is zero evidence to show that adminstrators did anything wrong here.
It seems like half the problem here is that this is just a complex, stupid bureaucracy. And the more complex and stupid the rules get, the more people complain that it's unfair and ask for more welfare.
None of which means there isn't any value to social safety nets. Though I have to say that, based on browsing around this woman's blog posts (she's a woman, not a man), the whole collection is an array of stories about why her problems are other people's faults. She also has a rather sad post about domestic abuse. Overall, I feel bad for her, it sounds like life just hasn't gone her way on a number of fronts.
More importantly, the more complex and stupid and rigid the rules get the worse the outcomes are. The reason it's such a complex stupid bureaucratic mess is because the people who've set it up--and the people who're tasked with the implementation--don't really know what they want to do with these programmes or why. They don't know much about their clients either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I've argued this before on another front, but I do see this as a product of government overextending itself.
Any given large system can only handle so much complexity. Often, entitlement laws veer in one of two bad directions. Either they are over-specific in order to please specific constituencies, or they give enormous leeway to the bureaucrats who will fuck up implementation and then ask for more money.
How did you find this blog?
From the first linkQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Of course being the Guardian most of the article is dedicated to spin. Try and bear in mind there's a difference between schemes for people who have already spent MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF unemployed and those who're newly unemployed.Quote:
A spokesman for the DWP said it was misleading to claim that the report found that "some of those referred to MWA were more likely to claim benefits", and said the report actually showed that on average people referred to MWA spent more time off benefits over 21 weeks than other jobseekers.
Because a year and a half wasn't long enough to be at homeQuote:
Or maybe looking for work?
watching Jeremy Kylelooking for work.
What can she achieve from home 9-5 better than in a supervised setting?
I'm going to give you a chance to read and consider more than just one paragraph. It's ironic to see you accuse the journalist of spin considering your posts in this thread :bulb: but we can return to that matter once you're done reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I am reminded once more of the TED-lectures on the importance of giving people with good judgement the means and the freedom to act according to their judgement for the furtherance of good goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I was looking for a link to the DWP's report :o this discussion is very relevant to Swedish politics atm.Quote:
How did you find this blog?
I'm not spinning, I'm outright stating my opinions as my opinions.
Still not seen you say why you think 18 months is too short of a time to allow people to try and find work at home without support by supervising them. How long do you think is long enough that we should leave everyone to their own devices without any help? And how is that considerate?
I'll help you out:
Quote:
NIESR concluded that the methodology was sound, although the nature of the selection process for programme referrals means that it is very difficult to identify truly comparable individuals who were not referred. As a consequence, it is possible that benefit impacts are underestimated. However, subject to this, the key conclusions - that MWA had a small and transitory impact on benefit receipt, and no impact on employment - appear reasonable.
Except that that's not what was going on. What was going on was that they were in a ridiculous and disorganised "course" for learning how to use MS Office and spent that time rebelliously looking for work of their own volition. They weren't being "supported" or "supervised". Were they being "helped"? See the aforementioned report (warning: contains more than one paragraph).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade