The Dole & Benefits Discussion

[Benjamin]

Yes, it's time for me to start another discussion.


This time I want to know your views on benefits and the dole. Do you agree with them? Are you on or have you been on them?

[Grimnir]

My idea would be to set a 3 month limit on unemployment benefit

If someone leaves a job for whatever reason they have 3 months to find a new job

If after 3 months they unsuccessful, they are automatically given a job at national minimum wage.

Also once they start work their tax is increased by a certain % so they pay back the unemployment benefit. Once benefit is paid back their tax level returns to normal.

This way only people unemployed are the sick, children and the elderly.
Plus all benefit paid to those unemployed for 1-3 months is eventually returned. Save so much money.

[Tom4784]

My idea would be to set a 3 month limit on unemployment benefit

If someone leaves a job for whatever reason they have 3 months to find a new job

If after 3 months they unsuccessful, they are automatically given a job at national minimum wage.

Also once they start work their tax is increased by a certain % so they pay back the unemployment benefit. Once benefit is paid back their tax level returns to normal.

This way only people unemployed are the sick, children and the elderly.
Plus all benefit paid to those unemployed for 1-3 months is eventually returned. Save so much money.

Where would the jobs come from? There's a reason why people who earn under a certain amount of money don't get taxed and it's because they simply can't afford it.

My approach would be similar but also very different. I'd offer up a similar timeframe after which I'd have mandatory volunteering positions set up so that they can earn the money but also gain work experience at the same time. It's a bit more realistic as a lot of companies wouldn't turn down a free workforce and it's beneficial to both sides in the long run.

[Vicky.]

If after 3 months they unsuccessful, they are automatically given a job at national minimum wage.


If it was that simple, do you really think so many people would be unemployed?

Not everyone who is on the dole is a scrounger you know, many are actually looking for jobs, they just arent there :bored:

Its a fantastic idea in theory, but it wouldnt work.

[Grimnir]

Where would the jobs come from? There's a reason why people who earn under a certain amount of money don't get taxed and it's because they simply can't afford it.

My approach would be similar but also very different. I'd offer up a similar timeframe after which I'd have mandatory volunteering positions set up so that they can earn the money but also gain work experience at the same time. It's a bit more realistic as a lot of companies wouldn't turn down a free workforce and it's beneficial to both sides in the long run.

The jobs would come from the same place the mandatory volunteer positions you mentioned come from.
They already have mandatory work placements, but no one should be forced to work for below the national minimum wage under any circumstances, not even foreigners should be made to do that.
If main reason there are so many unemployed is because there are too many people and not enough jobs, then Government needs to lower the amount of people and create more jobs.

[Niall]

I think the dole is something very necessary to help those in the country that are down on their luck and have no job or income. The amount of people in poverty in the U.K would probably sharply increase if the dole was suddenly cut by the government.

I do think it causes some people to just sit around on the dole simply because they can. I know that many people on the dole are decent people who can't find a job, but there are some people who just stay on the dole cause its easy - my brother was one of them. But to be honest, I'm not that sure how to fix that issue other than the government trying to create jobs wherever they can. D:

[Tom4784]

The jobs would come from the same place the mandatory volunteer positions you mentioned come from.
They already have mandatory work placements, but no one should be forced to work for below the national minimum wage under any circumstances, not even foreigners should be made to do that.
If main reason there are so many unemployed is because there are too many people and not enough jobs, then Government needs to lower the amount of people and create more jobs.

The difference is that the companies would have to pay them if it was a job, if it's voluntary they'll be more likely to comply and then if there's any they are impressed with they can hire them if they wish. Also I'm not talking about full time work placements, I'm thinking of them doing as much work as they are paid in benefits. So a day or two a week, the experience would still be incredibly beneficial for them when it comes to looking for a job.

It's very easy to say 'create jobs' but how do you propose they go about it?

[Stacey.]

LOL *looks at tommy*

[Niall]

LOL *looks at tommy*

:laugh3:

[Grimnir]

The difference is that the companies would have to pay them if it was a job, if it's voluntary they'll be more likely to comply and then if there's any they are impressed with they can hire them if they wish. Also I'm not talking about full time work placements, I'm thinking of them doing as much work as they are paid in benefits. So a day or two a week, the experience would still be incredibly beneficial for them when it comes to looking for a job.

It's very easy to say 'create jobs' but how do you propose they go about it?

Once someone gets to the 3 month stage of unemployment they go to the front of the queue when they attend the various job agencies thoughout UK.
The job agencies work by companies paying them to find them workers.
At this level the difference in quality of worker is insignificant so companies have no grounds for discriminating.
Also the advantage is that the company and agency only have to pay them minimum wage instead of £7-£10 per hour or so.

To create more jobs we should improve manufacturing industry and also stop big companies employing foreign workers in other countries so they can pay them peanuts and make huge profits.
An example is why now when ring BT does someone in India answer calling himself Dave?
No problem with someone Indian who lives in Britain working for BT but not having them based in India when they could just as easily operate from within Britain. It is called BRITISH TELECOM after all.

[cub]

Benefits and handouts could still come with a price.

Either compulsory training, schooling or part time manual work - picking up litter, gardening, etc.

Replace some of the money with coupons for food and clothing.

[Zippy]

I think many long term unemployed get very comfortable doing fck all and getting paid for it. As somebody who has to work and pay for all my extra joys in life its just annoying to see these people with their computers, game consoles, huge screen TVs...fags, booze etc etc And I see this with my own eyes daily so don't dare tell me its not the case.

If youve been jobless for more than a few months then you need to just accept one of the crappy, menial jobs and thats that. Can't be getting picky when you're supposedly desperate and taxpayers are paying your way. Meanwhile, you can still be looking for a better job.

And all the benefit cheats seriously need hunting down. They are draining the system;

ALMOST two million incapacity benefit claimants look set to be exposed as workshy scroungers. Damning new figures have for the first time unmasked the horrifying scale of fakers draining Britain’s welfare system. David Cameron has declared war on spongers and four in 10 claimants already tested have been ruled “fit to work”.

40% of sickness claimants even failed to turn up for assessments. Well kick them off benefits then!

[Vicky.]

ALMOST two million incapacity benefit claimants look set to be exposed as workshy scroungers. Damning new figures have for the first time unmasked the horrifying scale of fakers draining Britain’s welfare system. David Cameron has declared war on spongers and four in 10 claimants already tested have been ruled “fit to work”.

40% of sickness claimants even failed to turn up for assessments. Well kick them off benefits then!

As someone who has undergone the ATOS assessment myself a while back...I know this is a load of bollocks. ATOS are pretty much paid to find people fit for work, no matter how ill they actually are, so they can throw out statistics like this. The 'doctors' who assess you are not always qualified either. I had a ex midwife doing my mental health assessment. I was given 8 points, which made me 'fit for work' as you need 15 points to remain on IB. Even though at that time I could not leave the house on my own due to severe panic attacks and general anxiety. The midwife acknowledged this on my form. Along with my GP confirming it. Yet they tried to kick me off the sick, as I did not have the full 15 points. I appealed and won...but it was common sense anyway that if at that time I couldnt leave the house on my own...yes, technically I COULD sign on, only if someone came with me to my signings, but I could not look/take for a job. How many employers would take on someone who was severely depressed, took panic attacks at regular intervals, and had to have someone they knew around them on every shift?

The 'medical assessment' itself, is only someone sitting asking you questions. And they also twist your answers to suit themselves. They try to pressure you into certain answers. And in some cases even totally make up things that you are supposed to have said.

I know a few people who have said exactly the same thing too...they also appealed, and were found by the tribunal to be unfit for work. The tribunal panel DOES actually have a qualified doctor on it. This makes a hell of a difference IMO.

[joeysteele]

Well with high unemployment now at or over the 2.5 million mark then clearly benefits have to there,there are now many people losing jobs they have had for decades and others who have worked in their current jobs for a year or more, you cannot limit benefits as to time you pay them if you don't have jobs for people to take.

Now no way am I a brilliant mathematician but there are currently over 2.5 million people unemployed,simply unemployed, not on sickness or disability but there are only around at best 500,000 vacancies across the Country, now whether people are good at maths or not its easy to see that you cannot employ 2.5 million people into 500,000 vacancies.

So this bashing of people unemployed by this coalition govt is wrong and also unfair at this time.

[Zippy]

The 'medical assessment' itself, is only someone sitting asking you questions. And they also twist your answers to suit themselves. They try to pressure you into certain answers. And in some cases even totally make up things that you are supposed to have said.

I know a few people who have said exactly the same thing too...they also appealed, and were found by the tribunal to be unfit for work. The tribunal panel DOES actually have a qualified doctor on it. This makes a hell of a difference IMO.

well mental issues are always difficult to assess. You're mostly having to go by what the patient tells you. Which could be lies.

So just as its easy to not read a persons illness its also easy for a claimant to lie and exaggerate how bad they are. Even with people who have issues being around lots of people they could still do many other jobs that are solitary or not around lots of people. They should train towards doing these jobs instead of just labelling them selves totally incapable of working. Which they are not. Many people even work online.

[joeysteele]

As someone who has undergone the ATOS assessment myself a while back...I know this is a load of bollocks. ATOS are pretty much paid to find people fit for work, no matter how ill they actually are, so they can throw out statistics like this. The 'doctors' who assess you are not always qualified either. I had a ex midwife doing my mental health assessment. I was given 8 points, which made me 'fit for work' as you need 15 points to remain on IB. Even though at that time I could not leave the house on my own due to severe panic attacks and general anxiety. The midwife acknowledged this on my form. Along with my GP confirming it. Yet they tried to kick me off the sick, as I did not have the full 15 points. I appealed and won...but it was common sense anyway that if at that time I couldnt leave the house on my own...yes, technically I COULD sign on, only if someone came with me to my signings, but I could not look/take for a job. How many employers would take on someone who was severely depressed, took panic attacks at regular intervals, and had to have someone they knew around them on every shift?

Vicky, that is a brilliant post and what you describe is disgraceful, this is the post of this thread and maybe the coalition govt should be sent it too.

I think what happened to you Vicky was shocking and you are right what employer would take on or keep in work people who at a moments notice may become ill or be unreliable due to their condition at the time.Brilliant account and brilliant post from you.

This thread was talking about the unemployed of which actual unemployment is over 2.5m million people, Zippy brought in those on incapacity and disability too,so that takes the figure to over 4 million out of work at least with the 2 elements combined, how can the govt put over 4 million people into under 500,000 vacancies.
We are in the economics of madness and while I would agree there are likely scroungers in the benefits system there are likely more in business and among the very well off too,there was even a high number of scroungers among 650 MPs.
That does not mean the vast majority of sick, disabled, rich, poor, unemployed and MPs are all scroungers though.

[Vicky.]

well mental issues are always difficult to assess. You're mostly having to go by what the patient tells you. Which could be lies.


I guess. Helps to have a person who is actually qualified in assessing mental health though...right? Or real GPs... not the medical rejects that they have there

ATOS are useless. Totally. They pass people who are on the sick for being 'alcoholics' just because they turn up to the interview drunk. Yet try to kick people off who are actually ill.

Luckily there is the tribunal panel though.

[Grimnir]

People who are unemployed and looking for work should be the focus.
Government and public should not demonise those who are sick and unfit for work.
Its easy for someone happy and healthy to look at someone who is not in a wheelchair or coma and think to themselves whats wrong with them? why they not workin like me? They must be lazy. Try living as that person for a while and see if you think same.

[Judas]

It's a bit more realistic as a lot of companies wouldn't turn down a free workforce and it's beneficial to both sides in the long run.

The problem with this is, why would a company employ someone when they could get a free workforce? This would just increase unemployment...

[Vicky.]

We are in the economics of madness and while I would agree there are likely scroungers in the benefits system there are likely more in business and among the very well off too,there was even a high number of scroungers among 650 MPs.

Oh yeah, I know there are a lot who do just want something for nothing. Just makes my blood boil when the majority seem to be lumped into the same category tbh. And when the government throw out these statistics all the time, when they know fine well that the only reason they have these high percentages, is because of ATOS, and their shoddy 'medical examinations'...if they took into account also the amount of people who appealed the decision and won, the statistics would be far lower.

[Vicky.]

The problem with this is, why would a company employ someone when they could get a free workforce? This would just increase unemployment...

Exactly. The number of 'unemployed but working for benefits' would rise. Eventually everyone would be on benefits but working for free...

[joeysteele]

Oh yeah, I know there are a lot who do just want something for nothing. Just makes my blood boil when the majority seem to be lumped into the same category tbh. And when the government throw out these statistics all the time, when they know fine well that the only reason they have these high percentages, is because of ATOS, and their shoddy 'medical examinations'...if they took into account also the amount of people who appealed the decision and won, the statistics would be far lower.

I don't disagree at all with you Vicky, you have spoken from a personal experience and have shown the massive flaws in the system, (sorry I don't know who ATOS is but they sound pathetic),It's a pity Govts don't listen to you and others with those experiences then with the knowledge gained from you and others make decisions based more fairly as to policy on the matter.
I thank you for your posts on this, you have taught me something I didn't realise happened.

[Judas]

I think that we are spending to much on 'the dole' and benefits in general. I think we need to look at each case on an individual basis. For someone living on their own JSA is simply not enough to survive on. However, I was speaking to Tommy and Scott recently about it (I hope they don't mind me using them as examples) - and they both claim some kind of benefits, and from the conversation it was clear they weren't to bothered about getting jobs. Obviously this shows that in some cases, people don't look hard enough.

But also I think that people in Tommy's situation are payed abit to much. As he lives with his Mum, he only has to pay around half to her and help her out every now and then understandably. But he also has money left to spend on fun things like clothes etc., which, if when I leave uni, and am in a similar situation, would leave me with little motivation to find a job.

Therefore I think benefits should also be means tested - if people live with their parents, they need much, much less. If they leave with on their own they need more to sustain a reasonable lifestyle and not end up homeless.

However, I do support agree that work experience should be provided - but only for charities. This obviously stops local councills sacking 'Bob the street cleaner' only for him to work as 'Bob the street cleaner' for an unpayed, voluntary figure. Working for charities in shops, care etc. would provide work experience and fill a missing void in the voluntary sector.

[Judas]

As someone who has undergone the ATOS assessment myself a while back...I know this is a load of bollocks. ATOS are pretty much paid to find people fit for work, no matter how ill they actually are, so they can throw out statistics like this. The 'doctors' who assess you are not always qualified either. I had a ex midwife doing my mental health assessment. I was given 8 points, which made me 'fit for work' as you need 15 points to remain on IB. Even though at that time I could not leave the house on my own due to severe panic attacks and general anxiety. The midwife acknowledged this on my form. Along with my GP confirming it. Yet they tried to kick me off the sick, as I did not have the full 15 points. I appealed and won...but it was common sense anyway that if at that time I couldnt leave the house on my own...yes, technically I COULD sign on, only if someone came with me to my signings, but I could not look/take for a job. How many employers would take on someone who was severely depressed, took panic attacks at regular intervals, and had to have someone they knew around them on every shift?

The 'medical assessment' itself, is only someone sitting asking you questions. And they also twist your answers to suit themselves. They try to pressure you into certain answers. And in some cases even totally make up things that you are supposed to have said.

I know a few people who have said exactly the same thing too...they also appealed, and were found by the tribunal to be unfit for work. The tribunal panel DOES actually have a qualified doctor on it. This makes a hell of a difference IMO.

Just out of query, are you payed much more when your unfit for work for health purposes? I hate to sound like a moaner, but again I feel these situations should be means tested, for those that actually are skanking off the state.

[MTVN]

I think that we are spending to much on 'the dole' and benefits in general. I think we need to look at each case on an individual basis. For someone living on their own JSA is simply not enough to survive on. However, I was speaking to Tommy and Scott recently about it (I hope they don't mind me using them as examples) - and they both claim some kind of benefits, and from the conversation it was clear they weren't to bothered about getting jobs. Obviously this shows that in some cases, people don't look hard enough.

But also I think that people in Tommy's situation are payed abit to much. As he lives with his Mum, he only has to pay around half to her and help her out every now and then understandably. But he also has money left to spend on fun things like clothes etc., which, if when I leave uni, and am in a similar situation, would leave me with little motivation to find a job.

Therefore I think benefits should also be means tested - if people live with their parents, they need much, much less. If they leave with on their own they need more to sustain a reasonable lifestyle and not end up homeless.

However, I do support agree that work experience should be provided - but only for charities. This obviously stops local councills sacking 'Bob the street cleaner' only for him to work as 'Bob the street cleaner' for an unpayed, voluntary figure. Working for charities in shops, care etc. would provide work experience and fill a missing void in the voluntary sector.

Yeah I agree with a lot of this, we also need to be careful to avoid having people falling into the unemployment trap so that people arent better off on benefits than they would be working. They should be a last resort and act as a safety net, and not give disincentivise people from finding a job

[Vicky.]

Just out of query, are you payed much more when your unfit for work for health purposes? I hate to sound like a moaner, but again I feel these situations should be means tested, for those that actually are skanking off the state.

During the 'assessment phase' you are actually paid much less. My money went down to about 40 pound a week. Once you pass the tribunal(and ATOS failing you is pretty standard from what I have heard, which is why I havent said when you pass your assessment) you get basic jobseekers amount, and about 30 a week on top of that.

[Vicky.]

I think that we are spending to much on 'the dole' and benefits in general. I think we need to look at each case on an individual basis. For someone living on their own JSA is simply not enough to survive on. However, I was speaking to Tommy and Scott recently about it (I hope they don't mind me using them as examples) - and they both claim some kind of benefits, and from the conversation it was clear they weren't to bothered about getting jobs. Obviously this shows that in some cases, people don't look hard enough.

But also I think that people in Tommy's situation are payed abit to much. As he lives with his Mum, he only has to pay around half to her and help her out every now and then understandably. But he also has money left to spend on fun things like clothes etc., which, if when I leave uni, and am in a similar situation, would leave me with little motivation to find a job.

Therefore I think benefits should also be means tested - if people live with their parents, they need much, much less. If they leave with on their own they need more to sustain a reasonable lifestyle and not end up homeless.

However, I do support agree that work experience should be provided - but only for charities. This obviously stops local councills sacking 'Bob the street cleaner' only for him to work as 'Bob the street cleaner' for an unpayed, voluntary figure. Working for charities in shops, care etc. would provide work experience and fill a missing void in the voluntary sector.

Definitely agree with this. I have a few mates who still live at home, and claim jobseekers. And basically, on their 'payday' they just go out on the drink with the money they get, or buy CDs or something.

If you live on your own, you get housing benefit and council tax benefit too... when you are over 25 you get about £65 a week...think its about £50 beforehand. You need to pay tv licence, water rates, electric, gas and food. I dont quite understand people who do it by choice(if single and on their own) as after all of this you have nothing at all left. I think the majority of scroungers must live with their parents still...or have kids. When you have kids your money goes up to a ridiculous amount.

Gavs ex has 3 kids. She gets around £200 every monday, and another £50 on a tuesday. Yet still moans that its not enough. Totally the opposite I think :/

[Zippy]

sorry I don't know who ATOS is but they sound pathetic..

you can't call them pathetic based on one anecdote!

humans make mistakes. Im sure many others managed to con their assessors into giving them sick pay when they didnt really qualify so it works both ways.

and, as Ive said, just because you have a condition that makes it hard for you to do certain jobs it doesn't mean you can't do ANY JOB. There are jobs for all kinds of people in all kinds of enviroments. You just have to aim for one that suits. Not say, "oh I have panic attacks round lots of people so I can't work at all". Thats BS. Just get a job thats not around lots of people. Duh.

[Judas]

During the 'assessment phase' you are actually paid much less. My money went down to about 40 pound a week. Once you pass the tribunal(and ATOS failing you is pretty standard from what I have heard, which is why I havent said when you pass your assessment) you get basic jobseekers amount, and about 30 a week on top of that.
Hmm, I can see that must be pretty hard, although again I feel that people who are unfit for work still shouldn't get £30 as a given - it should be if they need it to live on, not for simply being unable to work.


Gavs ex has 3 kids. She gets around £200 every monday, and another £50 on a tuesday. Yet still moans that its not enough. Totally the opposite I think :/
Wow, that is quite alot. So I assume accomadation is payed for/discounted?

[Vicky.]

you can't call them pathetic based on one anecdote!

humans make mistakes. Im sure many others managed to con their assessors into giving them sick pay when they didnt really qualify so it works both ways.

and, as Ive said, just because you have a condition that makes it hard for you to do certain jobs it doesn't mean you can't do ANY JOB. There are jobs for all kinds of people in all kinds of enviroments. You just have to aim for one that suits. Not say, "oh I have panic attacks round lots of people so I can't work at all". Thats BS. Just get a job thats not around lots of people. Duh.
Well I actually couldnt. Your examples of internet work, or working alone didnt really apply to me. I was also depressed and very ****ed in the head, I couldnt concentrate or do anything tbh. I couldnt even cook for myself as I often forgot that I had the cooker on and things like that, I didnt have the concentration span to read more than about 5 lines of a book or whatever. I used to sit for hours and hours doing nothing at all, except staring into space. I was like, really bad back then.

Very very glad to be out of the system now to be honest, as they tend to treat everyone like the scroungers. I actually feel that the whole assessment and that made me worse :S

[Vicky.]

Hmm, I can see that must be pretty hard, although again I feel that people who are unfit for work still shouldn't get £30 as a given - it should be if they need it to live on, not for simply being unable to work.
yeah I know. Apparently its for the extra living costs.

I can understand that for the physically disabled.

But the only extra living cost I had was having to get a taxi to the doctors every month for my medication, and a taxi once a fortnight to see my councilor person.. Which certainly did not add up to the extra £120 a month that I got :/

Wow, that is quite alot. So I assume accomadation is payed for/discounted?

Yeah, she has no rent or council tax to pay. She also gets 'milk tokens'. For part of her food shopping

[Zippy]

Well I actually couldnt. Your examples of internet work, or working alone didnt really apply to me. I was also depressed and very ****ed in the head, I couldnt concentrate or do anything tbh. I couldnt even cook for myself as I often forgot that I had the cooker on and things like that, I didnt have the concentration span to read more than about 5 lines of a book or whatever. I used to sit for hours and hours doing nothing at all, except staring into space. I was like, really bad back then.

Very very glad to be out of the system now to be honest, as they tend to treat everyone like the scroungers. I actually feel that the whole assessment and that made me worse :S

well I didnt mean you specifically. But many others seem to think that having a certain illness prevents them doing any job. But even with physical injuries or incapabilities there are jobs you can still do. If you have the desire to work.

Trouble is we've created a workshy culture with no sense of pride.

Glad you're better now, Vicky. :hug:

[Vicky.]

About the ATOS thing too.

I did a quick google news search on them and the first 4 stories to come up are these

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/18/nothing-reforming-about-welfare-bill

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2011/03/no-answers-to-our-atos-origin.html


http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/661/11338/09-03-2011/casualties-of-cuts-and-a-rotten-system

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/work-capability-assessment-anguish-disabled-people

Some interesting reading there. There are many more but I have to go out now, but just google ATOS medical if anyone wants to know anything ese about them :)

[Tom.]

Benefits are a good thing especially to those who aren't able to work, whether by physical or mental disability.

Incapacity benefit is a bit of a joke and if the conservatives have done one good thing then its to make sure that this isn't taken advantage of.

For people who aren't able to find a job, after about 3 months they should be given supermarket vouchers instead of money to go and buy the essentials they need (excluding including alcohol or cigarettes), that way it gives them a kick up the back side to go and find a decent job. And if you can't get one in 3 months you're just not trying hard enough, and perhaps its time to deflate your ego and go for a lowest rank job (ie cleaning). The alternative could be community work, and so those on job seekers benefit are effectively working for the state.

[Zippy]

yes I agree with vouchers instead of cash. Give them poundshop vouchers you can buy all you need there.

In America they have food stamps. makes sense.

[Stu]

The dole is perfect in every way and I shant have a bad word said against it.

[Judas]

Yeah, she has no rent or council tax to pay. She also gets 'milk tokens'. For part of her food shopping
It is annoying, there are so many kids from my school that have already got 3 kids (in the 3 years years since we first left). I would guess half of them will never work again. And then I have to pay for my own tuition fees, when others claim £1000's more during their lifetime.

About the ATOS thing too.

I did a quick google news search on them and the first 4 stories to come up are these

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/18/nothing-reforming-about-welfare-bill

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2011/03/no-answers-to-our-atos-origin.html

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/661/11338/09-03-2011/casualties-of-cuts-and-a-rotten-system

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/work-capability-assessment-anguish-disabled-people

Some interesting reading there. There are many more but I have to go out now, but just google ATOS medical if anyone wants to know anything ese about them :)
Carefull you don't turn into arista, just the leftist version :hugesmile: All those sites are abit biased, but I'll read into it now.

The dole is perfect in every way and I shant have a bad word said against it.
:nono::nono: omg you ***** scrunger livin off my taxes u derserve nothing

[Angus]

It is annoying, there are so many kids from my school that have already got 3 kids (in the 3 years years since we first left). I would guess half of them will never work again. And then I have to pay for my own tuition fees, when others claim £1000's more during their lifetime.


Carefull you don't turn into arista, just the leftist version :hugesmile: All those sites are abit biased, but I'll read into it now.


:nono::nono: omg you ***** scrunger livin off my taxes u derserve nothing

The whole concept of welfare is that you pay your taxes and your national insurance contributions and IF and WHEN you find find yourself in hardship you will have earned the right to claim help. It was designed as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

What ticks me off is the amount of claimants who cynically exploit the system, never having done a day's work in their lives and having no intention of ever doing so. It's these scroungers who have ruined the welfare system, diverting scarce resources away from those who truly need them. It's because of these scroungers that genuine claimants are treated with hostility and suspicion, and have to jump through hoops to claim what they are entitled to.

[Jessica.]

People keep pressuring me to go on the Dole because it's actually impossible to find a job or anything but I don't want to because it's so degrading really, needing money from the government, I could do with the money but the whole concept is just not something I want to involve myself in. :bawling:

[joeysteele]

Benefits are a good thing especially to those who aren't able to work, whether by physical or mental disability.

Incapacity benefit is a bit of a joke and if the conservatives have done one good thing then its to make sure that this isn't taken advantage of.

For people who aren't able to find a job, after about 3 months they should be given supermarket vouchers instead of money to go and buy the essentials they need (excluding including alcohol or cigarettes), that way it gives them a kick up the back side to go and find a decent job. And if you can't get one in 3 months you're just not trying hard enough, and perhaps its time to deflate your ego and go for a lowest rank job (ie cleaning). The alternative could be community work, and so those on job seekers benefit are effectively working for the state.

Really sorry Tom to disagree.
One of my Aunts is high up in a supermarket chain,she says supermarkets would not like the voucher system,it would be unlikely some supermarkets would want to ahve to accept them and also smaller shops claiming the funds for them would be kept waiting for the funds too.

The vouchers would be open to misuse,people could sell the vouchers cheaply and then buy cigarettes with them but why on earth should people who have paid tax and National Insurance who find themselves out of work have to be made to look like 2nd class citizens in shops and stores handing vouchers over.

Then since a lot of shops and likely stores would not agree to them anyway,(many stores have now stopped taking cheques never mind vouchers),if they could only be used at certain outlets then you further penalise the genuine unemployed/sick/disabled from getting the best prices and deals from shopping around.
Vouchers are a rediculous idea,people should not be penalised and made to become 2nd class citizens because they have due to economic climates become unemployed or are genuinely sick and disabled.

People have to travel, how do they pay the bus/train with vouchers it would cost a fortune to manage and oversee never mind the large cost in setting it up.More waste of taxpayers money it would end up being.

[GiRTh]

As someone who has undergone the ATOS assessment myself a while back...I know this is a load of bollocks. ATOS are pretty much paid to find people fit for work, no matter how ill they actually are, so they can throw out statistics like this. The 'doctors' who assess you are not always qualified either. I had a ex midwife doing my mental health assessment. I was given 8 points, which made me 'fit for work' as you need 15 points to remain on IB. Even though at that time I could not leave the house on my own due to severe panic attacks and general anxiety. The midwife acknowledged this on my form. Along with my GP confirming it. Yet they tried to kick me off the sick, as I did not have the full 15 points. I appealed and won...but it was common sense anyway that if at that time I couldnt leave the house on my own...yes, technically I COULD sign on, only if someone came with me to my signings, but I could not look/take for a job. How many employers would take on someone who was severely depressed, took panic attacks at regular intervals, and had to have someone they knew around them on every shift?

The 'medical assessment' itself, is only someone sitting asking you questions. And they also twist your answers to suit themselves. They try to pressure you into certain answers. And in some cases even totally make up things that you are supposed to have said.

I know a few people who have said exactly the same thing too...they also appealed, and were found by the tribunal to be unfit for work. The tribunal panel DOES actually have a qualified doctor on it. This makes a hell of a difference IMO.Great post Vic. :thumbs:

I too have been thru this process after rupturing several tendons in my upper leg. My experience are very similar to yours. I was examined by a nurse (not a doctor) she didnt look at my injury simply asked me a number of questions and gave me a zero score out of 20. I could barely walk yet she gave me a zero score. That system is a joke. My solicitor told me that they are told to fail everybody they examine so the person has to go thru the tribunal system. Its a disgusting system.

I think far too many people become enraged by the b*llsh*t they read about people on benefits without looking at the the issues they're reading about. Incidentally, are people aware that the greatest payout of benefits is actually thru pensions and the work shy scroungers are not as prevalent as they are being led to believe.

[BB_Eye]

My idea would be to set a 3 month limit on unemployment benefit

If someone leaves a job for whatever reason they have 3 months to find a new job

If after 3 months they unsuccessful, they are automatically given a job at national minimum wage.Most people on the dole would be delighted to have this. Not only is their income effectively trebled in full time work on the NMW compared to living on Jobseeker's Allowance, they get a working tax credit on top of that if they work for more than 30 hours. If they are disabled, have a child or are over 60, that limit is reduced to 16 hours. Sadly, putting them in work after a mere three months is impossible when those jobs don't exist.

Also once they start work their tax is increased by a certain % so they pay back the unemployment benefit. Once benefit is paid back their tax level returns to normal.Nice in theory, but where are you going to find permanent jobs for everybody where paying back such big debts in taxes will be even remotely possible? Plus, those in employment and paying taxes are repaying their debts anyway with their worker productivity and the taxes they are already paying.

[Tom.]

Really sorry Tom to disagree.
One of my Aunts is high up in a supermarket chain,she says supermarkets would not like the voucher system,it would be unlikely some supermarkets would want to ahve to accept them and also smaller shops claiming the funds for them would be kept waiting for the funds too.

The vouchers would be open to misuse,people could sell the vouchers cheaply and then buy cigarettes with them but why on earth should people who have paid tax and National Insurance who find themselves out of work have to be made to look like 2nd class citizens in shops and stores handing vouchers over.

Then since a lot of shops and likely stores would not agree to them anyway,(many stores have now stopped taking cheques never mind vouchers),if they could only be used at certain outlets then you further penalise the genuine unemployed/sick/disabled from getting the best prices and deals from shopping around.
Vouchers are a rediculous idea,people should not be penalised and made to become 2nd class citizens because they have due to economic climates become unemployed or are genuinely sick and disabled.

People have to travel, how do they pay the bus/train with vouchers it would cost a fortune to manage and oversee never mind the large cost in setting it up.More waste of taxpayers money it would end up being.

Shops could effectively 'cash' them with the government, and if you read my post properly you'd see I think that drastic action should apply to those who clearly aren't looking hard enough for a job.

Theres no foolproof system, it is always going to have flaws but the flaws with the present system are too easy to cheat.

[BB_Eye]

But also I think that people in Tommy's situation are payed abit to much. As he lives with his Mum, he only has to pay around half to her and help her out every now and then understandably. But he also has money left to spend on fun things like clothes etc., which, if when I leave uni, and am in a similar situation, would leave me with little motivation to find a job.

Therefore I think benefits should also be means tested - if people live with their parents, they need much, much less. If they leave with on their own they need more to sustain a reasonable lifestyle and not end up homeless.

They are means-tested. People paying rent or mortgage can claim housing benefit if they are living on a low income. Board money (the sum you pay your parents/guardians when living with them, not to be confused with lodging) is not covered by HB and there is no means test for it in JSA, Income Support, etc.

[GiRTh]

you can't call them pathetic based on one anecdote!

humans make mistakes. Im sure many others managed to con their assessors into giving them sick pay when they didnt really qualify so it works both ways.

and, as Ive said, just because you have a condition that makes it hard for you to do certain jobs it doesn't mean you can't do ANY JOB. There are jobs for all kinds of people in all kinds of enviroments. You just have to aim for one that suits. Not say, "oh I have panic attacks round lots of people so I can't work at all". Thats BS. Just get a job thats not around lots of people. Duh.Make that two anecdotes. You surprise me Zippy. You're always saying we shouldn't believe what we read when its about say Cheryl Cole or anyone you like yet; when it comes to this you're ready to believe what the press and news are telling you but not people who have had real live experiences.

When I read Vicky post I burst out laughing as it seems her experience was very similar t mine. Two people in completely different cites having the same experience of a specific organisation. Uncanny.

[BB_Eye]

As someone who has undergone the ATOS assessment myself a while back...I know this is a load of bollocks. ATOS are pretty much paid to find people fit for work, no matter how ill they actually are, so they can throw out statistics like this. The 'doctors' who assess you are not always qualified either. I had a ex midwife doing my mental health assessment. I was given 8 points, which made me 'fit for work' as you need 15 points to remain on IB. Even though at that time I could not leave the house on my own due to severe panic attacks and general anxiety. The midwife acknowledged this on my form. Along with my GP confirming it. Yet they tried to kick me off the sick, as I did not have the full 15 points. I appealed and won...but it was common sense anyway that if at that time I couldnt leave the house on my own...yes, technically I COULD sign on, only if someone came with me to my signings, but I could not look/take for a job. How many employers would take on someone who was severely depressed, took panic attacks at regular intervals, and had to have someone they knew around them on every shift?

The 'medical assessment' itself, is only someone sitting asking you questions. And they also twist your answers to suit themselves. They try to pressure you into certain answers. And in some cases even totally make up things that you are supposed to have said.

I know a few people who have said exactly the same thing too...they also appealed, and were found by the tribunal to be unfit for work. The tribunal panel DOES actually have a qualified doctor on it. This makes a hell of a difference IMO.This is pretty accurate.

My workplace often deals with people who have been taken off Incapacity Benefit or Employment and Support Allowance following a medical, only to later take it to appeal and win, only for the DWP to call them back for yet another medical and another and another until it runs on for years on end. It's bad enough that one medical and one round of form-filling alone is a degrading and humiliating experience.

A guy with cerebral palsy we dealt who is unable to walk more than a few paces or pick up objects for longer than ten seconds has been dealing wit them for almost a decade and you are right. Most medical panels never bother to hire qualified physicians and they are usually presided over by a nurse and a couple of DWP bureaucrats. They've often been known to ignore the diagnoses of doctors who stick up for their own patients in these situations.

God knows how much all of these medicals and appeals are costing the taxpayer in the long run. I expect it is far more than every benefit fraudster put together.

[joeysteele]

Shops could effectively 'cash' them with the government, and if you read my post properly you'd see I think that drastic action should apply to those who clearly aren't looking hard enough for a job.

Theres no foolproof system, it is always going to have flaws but the flaws with the present system are too easy to cheat.

I know you meant it selectively but it would be an administrative nightmare, of course the shops could cash them with the government but how slow does govt work.Also every area of life, business, Government and the lower end of the scales too find easy ways to cheat systems.
A drug addict for instance given vouchers would simply sell the vouchers a bit more cheaply and use the cash from them to but drugs.
Similarly alcohol and cigarettes but then neither of those are illegal in the UK anyway.

Of course if someone is not looking for work then drastic action as you say should be done, but I watched a programme some time ago where people rang employers when the person said they been for an interview to make sure they had.

Far better to take action in such a way as to, 1) interview unemployed people after say 6 months weekly or fortnightly, 2) have them leave all details of interviews and final results of interviews.3) If they say they have been turned down for the job then select some employers who had interviewd them for a summary of what happened at the interview. 4) if it was clear they had not been to interviews and were thereby not trying then take some drastic action against them in that instance.

I come back though to the point I made earlier in this excellent thread that ukturtle has made, and that is you still cannot employ 2.5 million unemployed and still growing, into under 500,000 vacancies which are still dropping.
That being the case there is little case to justify penalising anyone unemployed at this time at least.

[Grimnir]

Most people on the dole would be delighted to have this. Not only is their income effectively trebled in full time work on the NMW compared to living on Jobseeker's Allowance, they get a working tax credit on top of that if they work for more than 30 hours. If they are disabled, have a child or are over 60, that limit is reduced to 16 hours. Sadly, putting them in work after a mere three months is impossible when those jobs don't exist.

Nice in theory, but where are you going to find permanent jobs for everybody where paying back such big debts in taxes will be even remotely possible? Plus, those in employment and paying taxes are repaying their debts anyway with their worker productivity and the taxes they are already paying.

There are many industries within England that could be expanded to make more jobs available.
Also if we have 3 million unemployed and then we told we need foreign workforce, somethings not right there.

For paying back the benefit through tax it would be gradual and not large amounts, so would be easily paid back. They would work for minimum wage and pay few % more tax each month.

[joeysteele]

This is pretty accurate.

My workplace often deals with people who have been taken off Incapacity Benefit or Employment and Support Allowance following a medical, only to later take it to appeal and win, only for the DWP to call them back for yet another medical and another and another until it runs on for years on end. It's bad enough that one medical and one round of form-filling alone is a degrading and humiliating experience.

A guy with cerebral palsy we dealt who is unable to walk more than a few paces or pick up objects for longer than ten seconds has been dealing wit them for almost a decade and you are right. Most medical panels never bother to hire qualified physicians and they are usually presided over by a nurse and a couple of DWP bureaucrats. They've often been known to ignore the diagnoses of doctors who stick up for their own patients in these situations.

God knows how much all of these medicals and appeals are costing the taxpayer in the long run. I expect it is far more than every benefit fraudster put together.

They cost multi millions as do the appeals too agaisnt the decisions, on top of Vicky's really strong and thought inspiring post, yours too demonstrstes the lack of care, compassion and fairness of such assessments.

From yourself and Vicky today, I have learned a great deal as what people go through on some benefits,how sad that some try to lump all unemployed,sick and disabled to be labelled scroungers.
Still thought the weakest and poorest in a society are easy targets but they should not be in a so called decent society.

[keithafc]

Don't people after a certain time on JSA, go on the Steps to Work programme?

[bananarama]

Benefits of course are essential in a civilised society for those genuinly in need and having bad luck in life.

Unfortunately the benefit system is abused by other types who simple are lazy beggars and drug users using benefit money to finance a ridiculious low intelligence habit.....

[joeysteele]

Benefits of course are essential in a civilised society for those genuinly in need and having bad luck in life.

Unfortunately the benefit system is abused by other types who simple are lazy beggars and drug users using benefit money to finance a ridiculious low intelligence habit.....

I agree with your fist part of your post entirely.

I also agree most of the way with your second part but it is really the minority that abuse and waste the entitlements,it should no be an excuse becasue of that to term all those needing help as scroungers and wasters like some do, I know you didn't do that.
The media however does jump on every abuse and wastage incident as if it was the norm not the exception.

[Vicky.]

Don't people after a certain time on JSA, go on the Steps to Work programme?

I think it after claiming JSA for 6 months? Not too sure as I was only ever on jobseekers for a fortnight while inbetween jobs (before this job shortage, when it was simple to just get one on the spot). My mate has been unemployed for a year now, and he had to go on some course which was mandatory if he wanted to keep claiming. Know what the ONE WEEK course was for? To make a CV. During the week, they repaid his travel costs, and gave everyone who was on the course £2 a day for their dinner. They were there for 6 hours a day. A total of 30 hours, to do something that he finished in an hour. He said he spent the rest of the time using the internet at the facility.

Another waste of money if you ask me :/

[TomRocksUrSocks]

In America they have food tokens, which I think are a good idea. Whilst it wouldn't sort out the thing of people claiming them unlawfully, it would make a difference.

[keithafc]

I think it after claiming JSA for 6 months? Not too sure as I was only ever on jobseekers for a fortnight while inbetween jobs (before this job shortage, when it was simple to just get one on the spot). My mate has been unemployed for a year now, and he had to go on some course which was mandatory if he wanted to keep claiming. Know what the ONE WEEK course was for? To make a CV. During the week, they repaid his travel costs, and gave everyone who was on the course £2 a day for their dinner. They were there for 6 hours a day. A total of 30 hours, to do something that he finished in an hour. He said he spent the rest of the time using the internet at the facility.

Another waste of money if you ask me :/
Yeah. Sounds like the core gateway programme you go on after a year or more on JSA. Whats he doing now? A job placement?

[Angus]

I think it after claiming JSA for 6 months? Not too sure as I was only ever on jobseekers for a fortnight while inbetween jobs (before this job shortage, when it was simple to just get one on the spot). My mate has been unemployed for a year now, and he had to go on some course which was mandatory if he wanted to keep claiming. Know what the ONE WEEK course was for? To make a CV. During the week, they repaid his travel costs, and gave everyone who was on the course £2 a day for their dinner. They were there for 6 hours a day. A total of 30 hours, to do something that he finished in an hour. He said he spent the rest of the time using the internet at the facility.

Another waste of money if you ask me :/

That's because this ridiculous course is not intended to actually find anyone a job - people on it are removed from the official unemployment figures for the duration, as they will be shown as "in training" - this artificially massages the true figure of unemployed. Pathetic but true. I know this because I have a friend who works at our local Jobcentre.

Furthermore, the courses are aimed at the least intelligent, least motivated, and least likely to ever get work, thereby not actually being of any use whatsoever to genuine jobseekers like your friend, who find themselves twiddling their thumbs for hours every day. Surely his time would be better spent pounding the pavements and knocking on doors, not making him do the infantile activities they insist people participate in to get their Jobseekers. A total waste of resources.

In my opinion, those claiming JSA who have worked for years and paid their dues should not have to fulfil any other conditions in order to receive their money. It is actually quite insulting and demeaning to have to attend such basic courses as "how to write a CV"; how to apply for a job; how to behave at an interview; etc. I would refuse point blank to attend any course that is not going to actually teach me anything I already know.

Only the workshy, long term unemployed (and usually unemployable), should have to attend these pathetic courses to "earn" their JSA which they have probably never contributed a penny to in the first place.

[Vicky.]

Yeah. Sounds like the core gateway programme you go on after a year or more on JSA. Whats he doing now? A job placement?

Nope, still on the dole :/
That's because this ridiculous course is not intended to actually find anyone a job - people on it are removed from the official unemployment figures for the duration, as they will be shown as "in training" - this artificially massages the true figure of unemployed. Pathetic but true. I know this because I have a friend who works at our local Jobcentre.

Furthermore, the courses are aimed at the least intelligent, least motivated, and least likely to ever get work, thereby not actually being of any use whatsoever to genuine jobseekers like your friend, who find themselves twiddling their thumbs for hours every day. Surely his time would be better spent pounding the pavements and knocking on doors, not making him do the infantile activities they insist people participate in to get their Jobseekers. A total waste of resources.

In my opinion, those claiming JSA who have worked for years and paid their dues should not have to fulfil any other conditions in order to receive their money. It is actually quite insulting and demeaning to have to attend such basic courses as "how to write a CV"; how to apply for a job; how to behave at an interview; etc. I would refuse point blank to attend any course that is not going to actually teach me anything I already know.

Only the workshy, long term unemployed (and usually unemployable), should have to attend these pathetic courses to "earn" their JSA which they have probably never contributed a penny to in the first place.
Thats really interesting actually, thought it might be something like that.

On the other hand, sometimes they send people on worthwhile courses...but at a price. My sister has just had a baby, her partner was out of work while she was pregnant but trying to get back into working. The jobcentre arranged for him to go on some 2 week course to learn the basics of plastering and that after he asked them to. They messed around, giving him the wrong start dates for about a month, then finally gave him the correct one, and my sister went into labour the next day...however, they would not give him a day off to see his child. He continued going on this course, and was due a payment half way through. His payment never came. After ringing about and getting passed from office to office, he was eventually told that his payments would start up again when the course ended, as since he had voluntarily gone on the course (instred of being forced to...) he would have to make a new claim. Perfect for when you have just had a baby eh? Luckily my dad could lend them what they needed to support the newborn, but it really does make you think...surely they should be WANTING people to help themselves back into work, not have to be forced into it. But they make it as hard as possible to do that it seems :S

[keithafc]

Do they not give you a job placement?

[Tom.]

I know you meant it selectively but it would be an administrative nightmare, of course the shops could cash them with the government but how slow does govt work.Also every area of life, business, Government and the lower end of the scales too find easy ways to cheat systems.
A drug addict for instance given vouchers would simply sell the vouchers a bit more cheaply and use the cash from them to but drugs.
Similarly alcohol and cigarettes but then neither of those are illegal in the UK anyway.

Of course if someone is not looking for work then drastic action as you say should be done, but I watched a programme some time ago where people rang employers when the person said they been for an interview to make sure they had.

Far better to take action in such a way as to, 1) interview unemployed people after say 6 months weekly or fortnightly, 2) have them leave all details of interviews and final results of interviews.3) If they say they have been turned down for the job then select some employers who had interviewd them for a summary of what happened at the interview. 4) if it was clear they had not been to interviews and were thereby not trying then take some drastic action against them in that instance.

I come back though to the point I made earlier in this excellent thread that ukturtle has made, and that is you still cannot employ 2.5 million unemployed and still growing, into under 500,000 vacancies which are still dropping.
That being the case there is little case to justify penalising anyone unemployed at this time at least.

It depends how you spin the figures. Its 500,000 full time vacancies but I can guarantee there will be a hell of a lot more part time jobs, especially within the retail and hospitality industries. The only viable option at the minute would be for people on JSA temporarily joining the council to help with community work such as street cleaning etc, especially at a time when said jobs are currently being cut. At least they're putting something back into the public domain.

The problem with the current system which the Conservatives are putting right is that too many people were being sent to University with the false impression to better themselves. This lead to people studying pointless subjects instead of learning a trade. Some degrees are great qualifications if you can get them but of no use whatsoever in the real world. And in turn, that meant a lack of them in our country, hence all of the foreigners coming over and "stealing our jobs", as the saying goes. Fact is, if we had enough skilled people in the first place, we wouldn't need immigrants.

[Angus]

Nope, still on the dole :/

Thats really interesting actually, thought it might be something like that.

On the other hand, sometimes they send people on worthwhile courses...but at a price. My sister has just had a baby, her partner was out of work while she was pregnant but trying to get back into working. The jobcentre arranged for him to go on some 2 week course to learn the basics of plastering and that after he asked them to. They messed around, giving him the wrong start dates for about a month, then finally gave him the correct one, and my sister went into labour the next day...however, they would not give him a day off to see his child. He continued going on this course, and was due a payment half way through. His payment never came. After ringing about and getting passed from office to office, he was eventually told that his payments would start up again when the course ended, as since he had voluntarily gone on the course (instred of being forced to...) he would have to make a new claim. Perfect for when you have just had a baby eh? Luckily my dad could lend them what they needed to support the newborn, but it really does make you think...surely they should be WANTING people to help themselves back into work, not have to be forced into it. But they make it as hard as possible to do that it seems :S


That's a typical story of someone trying to help himself and his situation, and getting penalised for it. Unfortunately, the sort of people they often employ as "advisors" (and I use the term loosely), have no clue at all, and simply follow a format without taking into consideration a person's life skills, experience and qualifications. It must be galling, if you have good qualifications, and/or years of professional working experience, to be interviewed and assessed by some little oik with maybe only 5 GCSEs to their name. The whole system seems geared towards demotivating people, and genuine jobseekers are shown very little respect.

If, for example, a Jobseeker takes a temporary job for a couple of months, he has to sign off, and then, when the job finishes, go through the whole process of signing on again, with all the aggro and delays that involves. So 9 times out of 10 they won't bother and who can blame them?

[Vicky.]

Do they not give you a job placement?

Im not sure, as I said when I was on JSA it was only for 2 weeks so I dont really know much about it except for what I get told from friends/family. All I know is that he is planning on getting a modern apprenticeship so he can learn on the job, instead of training and then working, but wanted to know the absolute basics first, hence the course.

[Vicky.]

That's a typical story of someone trying to help himself and his situation, and getting penalised for it. Unfortunately, the sort of people they often employ as "advisors" (and I use the term loosely), have no clue at all, and simply follow a format without taking into consideration a person's life skills, experience and qualifications. It must be galling, if you have good qualifications, and/or years of professional working experience, to be interviewed and assessed by some little oik with maybe only 5 GCSEs to their name. The whole system seems geared towards demotivating people, and genuine jobseekers are shown very little respect.

If, for example, a Jobseeker takes a temporary job for a couple of months, he has to sign off, and then, when the job finishes, go through the whole process of signing on again, with all the aggro and delays that involves. So 9 times out of 10 they won't bother and who can blame them?
Yeah, along with the fact that they have a tendency to delay any money owed to you for about 6 weeks. And tell you that theres nothing they can do and just to get crisis loans(which you have to pay back in full once you start working again...or in small weekly amounts if you remain on the dole) while you wait for someone to...put your details on the system. Which just happens to take over a month?

I have seen others go through hell under the system, and people still just treat them like scroungers...no matter how hard they are actually trying to get back into work. The people who work in the jobcentre arent much better either. During the brief time I signed I was made to feel like scum. I probably have more qualifications than the people who work there too. Its ridiculous.

[Angus]

Do they not give you a job placement?

The Jobcentre is not obliged to find you a job, but they are supposed to be there to help you as much as they can. In reality they do very little, apart from doing what a jobseeker can do for themselves, ie trawling the job sites on the internet etc, and since the onus is on the jobseeker to be "actively seeking work" they are put in a position. The so called "Advisors" are basically not there to advise or help, but to monitor, cajole, and pressure Jobseekers into taking part time or temporary jobs, or mickey mouse courses just to get them off the unemployment figures.

However, if there is a job placement, I feel it should be paid at the going rate, and not be a means for stingy employers to get cheap labour. I have heard of employers cynically abusing the system by taking on work placements for a fortnight or a month, then not offering anything permanent -and then doing it all over again with new placements.

[joeysteele]

It depends how you spin the figures. Its 500,000 full time vacancies but I can guarantee there will be a hell of a lot more part time jobs, especially within the retail and hospitality industries. The only viable option at the minute would be for people on JSA temporarily joining the council to help with community work such as street cleaning etc, especially at a time when said jobs are currently being cut. At least they're putting something back into the public domain.

The problem with the current system which the Conservatives are putting right is that too many people were being sent to University with the false impression to better themselves. This lead to people studying pointless subjects instead of learning a trade. Some degrees are great qualifications if you can get them but of no use whatsoever in the real world. And in turn, that meant a lack of them in our country, hence all of the foreigners coming over and "stealing our jobs", as the saying goes. Fact is, if we had enough skilled people in the first place, we wouldn't need immigrants.


I was just quoting the independently assessed official figures as to vacancies and the number of unemployed.

Also while a lot of part time jobs are coming into effect they are as a result of loss of full time positions. Companies and Stores when someone leaves at present, either don't replace who has left or turn it into a part time post.

Well, I think you are right on the University issue, I believe University was in part in the past used to stop people being classed as unemployed,I also agree there are a lot of pointless courses that will not lead to jobs.
I hope to be able to secure my future from Uni happily not with a pointless subject but I know many people who are dreading when they leave Uni because no job is likely at the end of it all and also for the lesser jobs an older friend of mine tried for even those but was told she was over qualified for it so Uni can work against you.

Of course if the students doing pointless courses were not at Uni,they may well be likely on the unemployed register which the Govt also would not want.

The last part of your post Tom though, I also go along with completely,you are spot on.

[Glenn.]

Where would the jobs come from? There's a reason why people who earn under a certain amount of money don't get taxed and it's because they simply can't afford it.

My approach would be similar but also very different. I'd offer up a similar timeframe after which I'd have mandatory volunteering positions set up so that they can earn the money but also gain work experience at the same time. It's a bit more realistic as a lot of companies wouldn't turn down a free workforce and it's beneficial to both sides in the long run.

They did have a similar scheme going when Labour was in power. It was scraped when the Tories took over.

[Glenn.]

I think it after claiming JSA for 6 months? Not too sure as I was only ever on jobseekers for a fortnight while inbetween jobs (before this job shortage, when it was simple to just get one on the spot). My mate has been unemployed for a year now, and he had to go on some course which was mandatory if he wanted to keep claiming. Know what the ONE WEEK course was for? To make a CV. During the week, they repaid his travel costs, and gave everyone who was on the course £2 a day for their dinner. They were there for 6 hours a day. A total of 30 hours, to do something that he finished in an hour. He said he spent the rest of the time using the internet at the facility.

Another waste of money if you ask me :/

I was once out on a similar course like that. C.V writing, and Job search 5 days a week for 6 hrs. I had to do that for 3 months.

[Shasown]

My neighbour works as a Jobseeker advisor for the New Deal currently, he says the current system isnt much good at encouraging employers to take on new staff.

The current system is undergoing change even while we discuss it, currently jobseekers get phased into 3 different phases or stages depending how long they have been unemployed. The full format of the new system hasnt as yet been finalised, but a few of the incentives for both employers and the jobseeker have been removed. (Free WorkTrials, Government payment of £3000 to the employer for taking on a jobseeker.)

Stage 1 is for 3 months with fortnightly signing on for the duration, at the end of the 3 months the jobseeker then goes onto 6 weeks of weekly signing on.

Stage 2 is where the jobseeker signs on and makes a detailed plan for finding a job with an advisor, duing this there are training courses and work placements. the work placements were in certain areas found to actively prevent some firms from taking on additional workers, an example of this from my neighbour was Tescos, willingly accepting 6 placements continuously for over 2 years and never once offering any of them a job, they would simply have a new placement to replace the old one.

However the jobcentre official policy on this was that the person on the placement would gain valuable experience and a potential reference. Placements are for 12 weeks generally and the person on the placement actually gets about £15 a week on top of the JSA.

Stage 3 then has 6 weeksof weekly signing on and then alternate fortnightly signings back at the normal desks alternating with signing with the jobseeker advisor.

Currently when someone on Jobseekers signs on they have to inform the jobcentre of what jobs they have applied and other jobseeking activities, the Jobcentre can check any of the details at any time and if found to be false the jobseeker risks losing benefit for 6 weeks.


Its a great idea to place long term unemployed into various community based work programs however using them to fill local council shortfalls will only lead to industrial action.

NALGO etc are not going to standby and see their members etc made redundant and then replaced with the unemployed. Its also in violation of Employment laws, you cant declare a position redundant then fill it with a volunteer.

[Angus]

I agree that there are probably plenty of temporary jobs out there, but the system is geared to make it as difficult as possible for Jobseekers to make the transition back to claiming benefit quickly and efficiently once the job is finished. As Vicky said, it can take weeks to get your jsa once you sign back on, and meanwhile you either live on fresh air, or take out crisis loans (if you can get them). No wonder people are reluctant to do that.

As for mandatory volunteering, it's kind of a contradiction in terms since I don't think it's somehow right to compel someone to "volunteer". Perhaps there could be some way of increasing the JSA a bit for those who are prepared to volunteer, which would give them some sense of worth as well as benefitting the community. After all the majority of people who claim JSA have worked previously and paid their taxes and national insurance contributions, so why should they not receive their benefits without having strings attached?

The only ones who should be compelled to do some sort of community based volunteering are the hard core, long term unemployed, who have demonstrated no will or desire to work at all. If they haven't contributed to their JSA like most of those who claim it have through taxes in previous employment, then they have no right to complain.

[joeysteele]

I agree that there are probably plenty of temporary jobs out there, but the system is geared to make it as difficult as possible for Jobseekers to make the transition back to claiming benefit quickly and efficiently once the job is finished. As Vicky said, it can take weeks to get your jsa once you sign back on, and meanwhile you either live on fresh air, or take out crisis loans (if you can get them). No wonder people are reluctant to do that.

As for mandatory volunteering, it's kind of a contradiction in terms since I don't think it's somehow right to compel someone to "volunteer". Perhaps there could be some way of increasing the JSA a bit for those who are prepared to volunteer, which would give them some sense of worth as well as benefitting the community. After all the majority of people who claim JSA have worked previously and paid their taxes and national insurance contributions, so why should they not receive their benefits without having strings attached?

The only ones who should be compelled to do some sort of community based volunteering are the hard core, long term unemployed, who have demonstrated no will or desire to work at all. If they haven't contributed to their JSA like most of those who claim it have through taxes in previous employment, then they have no right to complain.

Great post and your last paragraph is impossible to dispute at all.

[keithafc]

My neighbour works as a Jobseeker advisor for the New Deal currently, he says the current system isnt much good at encouraging employers to take on new staff.

The current system is undergoing change even while we discuss it, currently jobseekers get phased into 3 different phases or stages depending how long they have been unemployed. The full format of the new system hasnt as yet been finalised, but a few of the incentives for both employers and the jobseeker have been removed. (Free WorkTrials, Government payment of £3000 to the employer for taking on a jobseeker.)

Stage 1 is for 3 months with fortnightly signing on for the duration, at the end of the 3 months the jobseeker then goes onto 6 weeks of weekly signing on.

Stage 2 is where the jobseeker signs on and makes a detailed plan for finding a job with an advisor, duing this there are training courses and work placements. the work placements were in certain areas found to actively prevent some firms from taking on additional workers, an example of this from my neighbour was Tescos, willingly accepting 6 placements continuously for over 2 years and never once offering any of them a job, they would simply have a new placement to replace the old one.

However the jobcentre official policy on this was that the person on the placement would gain valuable experience and a potential reference. Placements are for 12 weeks generally and the person on the placement actually gets about £15 a week on top of the JSA.

Stage 3 then has 6 weeksof weekly signing on and then alternate fortnightly signings back at the normal desks alternating with signing with the jobseeker advisor.

Currently when someone on Jobseekers signs on they have to inform the jobcentre of what jobs they have applied and other jobseeking activities, the Jobcentre can check any of the details at any time and if found to be false the jobseeker risks losing benefit for 6 weeks.


Its a great idea to place long term unemployed into various community based work programs however using them to fill local council shortfalls will only lead to industrial action.

NALGO etc are not going to standby and see their members etc made redundant and then replaced with the unemployed. Its also in violation of Employment laws, you cant declare a position redundant then fill it with a volunteer.
That is the way JSA is set up at the minute.