|
Elfface posted:Well, that job centre poster looks pretty bad, but there's two things to point out. The implication there is that getting people off JSA in and of itself is a target, and separate from the number of people the job centre has found confirmed work for. And it's not exactly safe to assume that 75% of all ex-claimants either moved to ESA or started work under the radar, especially with the rising numbers of people getting long-term sanctions (who give up signing on), people moving into nebulous self-employment, and the disparity between national changes in the numbers of employed and unemployed people, which never balances out
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:As a reformed smoker who has saved £3255.60 since quitting last year I'm of the opinion that everyone should quit smoking. I'm not saying quitting smoking doesn't have health and economic benefits, but its a bit mean to imply that people on benefits shouldn't have a little pleasure every now and again; this is before the profiling of people claiming benefits as using the money on creature comforts, secure in their knowledge they can get a bag of dried pasta and some tinned beans when they have been profligate with their spoils.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:So loving what. God forbid there should be a little shining pleasure in their feckless lives. Mention sanctions to them. Ciggies go out of necessity pretty loving quick when you have nixie to live on, maybe they should anction all smokers. Oh, and the people who are buying unhealthy food. They may be your colleagues, but they are dolts. I do have to say I'm on the side of the non smokers here. It's not a nice habit, it's very expensive however you look at it and it's not good for your health. It's personal responsibility to try to quit. Source: ex smoker
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Sanctions are awkward, but there needs to be some sort of incentive for people to actually attend the Job Centre. And to get a long-term sanction, you have to keep failing to attend while an existing one is underway, and there's plenty of letters, time to call in sick and other opportunities to stop it happening. I guess I'm a little defensive, since having worked for one, I can confirm that 'gently caress the scroungers' has never been said by anyone actually working with the unemployed and the typical 'Benefits Family' guy is actually the person most likely to want to work, they just don't know how to tailor a CV, the right places to look etc. etc. It's the middle-class adults who were the worst, by and large. The attitude of "I've been working for twenty years, I shouldn't have to apply for a minimum wage position" takes a long time to fade away. Even after a few years unemployed, it's easier to think of that as a temporary setback, while taking a lower-paid job would be a permanant loss of face. So basically, the people most likely to say 'Raargh, they're all layabouts who don't want to work' are the most likely to layabout and not want to work, when unemployed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Does it? I would say the CIA has a history of achieving its goals. I'm reading Killing Hope right now and it's a laundry list of "here's a country the CIA wanted to gently caress up -- they hosed it up." They have a history of being very good at loving up those who can't fight back. Any country that can afford it's own counter intelligence agency could run rings around the CIA and frequently did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:I'm not saying quitting smoking doesn't have health and economic benefits, but its a bit mean to imply that people on benefits shouldn't have a little pleasure every now and again; this is before the profiling of people claiming benefits as using the money on creature comforts, secure in their knowledge they can get a bag of dried pasta and some tinned beans when they have been profligate with their spoils. I'd rather alternative sources of pleasure were preferred. No good comes from smoking. And now I fancy a cigarette mmm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:They have a history of being very good at loving up those who can't fight back. Any country that can afford it's own counter intelligence agency could run rings around the CIA and frequently did. This is my killer argument against the " moon landings were a hoax!" crowd, cos you know the KGB would have been all over that in a minute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
Fingerless Gloves posted:The tories are continuing their crusade to be shining paragons of Christianity in these most trying times for Christians. Clicky.  Have fun you guys the whole super-religious stuff is really fun, trust me I'm from the US
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Elfface posted:Sanctions are awkward, but there needs to be some sort of incentive for people to actually attend the Job Centre. And to get a long-term sanction, you have to keep failing to attend while an existing one is underway, and there's plenty of letters, time to call in sick and other opportunities to stop it happening. The shortest sanction I ever received was three months, for failing to attend the first day of an optional unpaid work placement due to getting the date wrong. The only thing I learned from this is that sometimes things start on a Friday (also never ever trust the JCP) When the point of your organisation is to give people the bare minimum amount of money they need to survive (it actually says this on the letters) when they have little or no other income, "incentivising" people by threatening to take that away for months at a time if they slip up just once is loving terrible. Elfface posted:Secondly, when people do find work, they're not best pleased with JCP, so instead of actually signing off and letting the know, they just sever communications. I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:
I think we're probably already secularised enough that it won't work. Plus, the two major christian groups are Anglicans and Catholics, who don't really buy the prosperity gospel stuff. Even the weirdly high proportion of my friends who go to baptist churches are more the happy-clappy sort, really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
As another ex-smoker of course I think everyone should stop smoking but considering how difficult I found it when I was employed with no debt and no dependents i'm sure as hell not going to judge someone who can't manage to do it in worse circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/160414/clipid/160414_4ON_ECONDISCO_16 Choice quotes include: "The reality is" "Food banks are better publicised than ever before" "THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:The shortest sanction I ever received was three months, for failing to attend the first day of an optional unpaid work placement due to getting the date wrong. The only thing I learned from this is that sometimes things start on a Friday (also never ever trust the JCP) That seems off, to me. As I say, maybe JCP do it differently, but at the Work Programme we could only sanction* for a mandated activity, and they started at two weeks. There's no way we'd make a work placement optional, though we did only use ones with job offers at the end of it rather than the poundland-slaves. *which is to say, we'd fill out a failure-to-attend form and send it off to the decision makers, who would write a letter asking why someone hadn't attended. And while JCP were pretty bad about sharing the information, you could still qualify for hardship payments while on a sanction, and housing benefit etc. was unaffected. The biggest problem however, is the politicians. We were genuinely trying our best, but policies and procedures came from vote-winning politicians on high and we had no choice but to obey. It could be they've decided 'we must be tougher on the sponges' and ramped up sanctions, but they weren't that bad when I worked for them. And yeah, sanctions aren't perfect incentives, but what else is there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Elfface posted:And yeah, sanctions aren't perfect incentives, but what else is there? Work on making the courses more useful and appealing? Give little bonuses to people who do X number of work-related activities? I dunno, anything that doesn't involve cutting someone off with no income and no chance for an income for three months or more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Elfface posted:And yeah, sanctions aren't perfect incentives, but what else is there? * the stigma of being on job seeker's benefit * the fact that a life on job seeker's benefit is not by any means luxurious Are those not sufficient? Those incentives are good enough to keep me in a job so why wouldn't they be good enough to get one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Getting sanctioned for a couple of hundred quid isnt a fair punishment, its the reason people need foodbanks and are on the brink of suicide in some cases. If you have almost gently caress all, the DWP making sure it actually is gently caress all doesnt incentivise poo poo. If they did a better job (or to be more fair if there were actually enough jobs to fill) they could move to a state of matching people to jobs instead of loving people over who dont have anything and calling it a day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
Elfface posted:That seems off, to me. As I say, maybe JCP do it differently, but at the Work Programme we could only sanction* for a mandated activity, and they started at two weeks. There's no way we'd make a work placement optional, though we did only use ones with job offers at the end of it rather than the poundland-slaves. When I say "optional" what I mean is I got suckered into putting myself on the Mandatory Work Activity list as soon as I signed on, instead of going on it automatically 6-12 months later. I was depressed and thought some shop experience would do me good, and also wasn't told that one mistake would net me a £700 fine. Elfface posted:And yeah, sanctions aren't perfect incentives, but what else is there? Any system that doesn't treat bottom-rung benefits as a privilege. (this is why we should stop calling them "benefits" btw) e/ It's like, I keep wanting to talk about our current system in terms of carrot and stick, because somebody clearly thinks of it that way, but it's really not comparable at all. There is no real reward in this system other than the promise that you get to live for another fortnight; the only punishment is taking that away. It is supremely hosed up. Renaissance Robot fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Work on making the courses more useful and appealing? Give little bonuses to people who do X number of work-related activities? I dunno, anything that doesn't involve cutting someone off with no income and no chance for an income for three months or more. As I said, you still qualify for hardship and other benefits while on a sanction. It's not a complete cutoff. And actually tracking those X hours is next to impossible. Employers won;'t do it either. The whole reason part-time jobs tend to be less than 15 hours is because Tax Credit starts at 16, and employers used to have to do extra paperwork for it. They don't any more, but the time limit has stuck. And the work programme tries to be appealing and useful. It's just also tarred with the same brush as the unemployed-slavery. KKKlean Energy posted:* the stigma of being on job seeker's benefit This is 'lazy spongers' by another name. Of course people don't like being unemployed, but it's not something you have direct control over. and over time, it stops being a stigma and just becomes the status quo. Sure, it's not pleasant, but it's normal. Touchdown Boy posted:Getting sanctioned for a couple of hundred quid isnt a fair punishment, its the reason people need foodbanks and are on the brink of suicide in some cases. If you have almost gently caress all, the DWP making sure it actually is gently caress all doesnt incentivise poo poo. If they did a better job (or to be more fair if there were actually enough jobs to fill) they could move to a state of matching people to jobs instead of loving people over who dont have anything and calling it a day. Mental health is always tricky, and the best thing someone in that situation can do is talk to their doctor. But JCP aren't magic, they don't know if a person is having problems or not. And in a perfect world, there would be more jobs, but there aren't. In the meantime, people don't attend optional courses, for a variety of reasons. It's the same reason school is mandatory, if it wasn't, people wouldn't go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Elfface posted:And yeah, sanctions aren't perfect incentives, but what else is there? An unconditional basic minimum income, as a transitionary measure before the implementation of Full Communism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Pasco posted:An unconditional basic minimum income, as a transitionary measure before the implementation of Full Communism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Vote is happening on May 18th. It's not going to pass, BTW - it's pretty easy to get a referendum in Switzerland, but there's no way they have to votes for a majority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Elfface posted:This is 'lazy spongers' by another name. Of course people don't like being unemployed, but it's not something you have direct control over. and over time, it stops being a stigma and just becomes the status quo. Sure, it's not pleasant, but it's normal. I'm not sure I understand your response here (I'm definitely not calling anyone lazy spongers, just stating that there is that stigma and that that is an incentive to get out of unemployment).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
It was more this bit:quote:Those incentives are good enough to keep me in a job so why wouldn't they be good enough to get one? But the stigma alone isn't enough. In fact, it's usually the main problem, since employers assume someone is long-term unemployed for a reason, and are less likely to hire them. That reason is usually a lack of jobs, poor access to transportation, low education etc. which may not actually affect the job in question at all, but it holds people back regardless of how much they actually want it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Ok, understood. So how does the sanctioning system address the problem you describe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Directly? It doesn't. It's a reason for people to attend courses and programs that do, but that they wouldn't without a reason. And without a massive change to the benefits system, it's the only one there is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Elfface posted:And in a perfect world, there would be more jobs, but there aren't. In the meantime, people don't attend optional courses, for a variety of reasons. It's the same reason school is mandatory, if it wasn't, people wouldn't go. The unemployed are children?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
George Alagiah, the BBC's News at Six/Ten anchor, has been diagnosed with bowel cancer. I quite like him. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
TinTower posted:George Alagiah, the BBC's News at Six/Ten anchor, has been diagnosed with bowel cancer. Don't worry, someone will be along soon to tell you about a time he tweeted something not strictly Correct, and how that makes him history's greatest monster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Wow i'd have never thought he was 58.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
So UKIP kicked off about The Times' coverage of Farage and his dodgy office expenses, uncovering amazing facts like Times writer and Tory peer Lord Finkelstein being a conservative. The Times' response is beautiful;
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
TinTower posted:George Alagiah, the BBC's News at Six/Ten anchor, has been diagnosed with bowel cancer. Well, assuming they've caught it early (and doctors have started quite aggressively (no, not in that way) screening for it lately) he's got a drat good chance. I quite like him, too - and yeah, he's loving well-preserved for 58.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Apparently we, as a nation, have a culture of "in your face" sexism. Who knew? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27034117
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Zero Star posted:Apparently we, as a nation, have a culture of "in your face" sexism. Who knew? Uh, pretty much everyone that didn't have their head in the sand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Uh, pretty much everyone that didn't have their head in the sand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Elfface posted:
We dont starve children to death who skip school*... and I presume you arent suggesting we should. There are enough schools for everyone, if there werent and you punished those who didnt jump through hoops with no hope to attend one I suppose your analogy would be more accurate, but just as frightening. For every person who is lazy and skips all that poo poo there are probably thousands who wouldnt mind working and try their hardest. The second set of people are just as likely to make a mistake and get thrown on the sanction pile as the first. Its probably the well adjusted person who wont resort to crime to get by and not the 'lazy' ones you are talking about targetting who suffer most from the current arrangements. But hey at least we can say unemployment claims are going down!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:We dont starve children to death who skip school* I love how this particular combination of words merits a disclaimer. And somehow the fact that the disclaimer itself is omitted from the post makes it even better UKMT: We dont starve children to death who skip school*
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
I was sanctioned for six months. The reason for being sanctioned was that I could not travel to London to an interview that was arranged with an obvious scam (we need sales people to start immediately!) I couldn't do this because I had no money to travel and a thirteen year old dependent. Every appeal I went through deemed the sanction legitimate. It's only thanks to child tax credit and guardianship allowance that my sister wasn't put into care. I myself managed to develop pellagra, a disease usually found in sub-saharan Africa thanks to making sure that my sister had clothes and food. So any argument for why sanctions are a legit thing is going to be met with a solid gently caress you, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I don't see why the Tax payer should have to fork out for your flatscreen TVs and fancy imported diseases just because you're too stubborn to accept your inheritance from those Nigerian princes. I mean what's wrong with a good old fashioned British plague, hm?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I love how this particular combination of words merits a disclaimer. And somehow the fact that the disclaimer itself is omitted from the post makes it even better The disclaimer was removed by the DWP because its something they are giving serious thought to at the moment. They dont want to be considered backtracking if they do infact decide to starve absentee schoolchildren some time in the future. Edit: I mean we only want to help those schoolchildren who want to "work hard" and "get on" afterall... Touchdown Boy fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Elfface posted:That seems off, to me. As I say, maybe JCP do it differently, but at the Work Programme we could only sanction* for a mandated activity, and they started at two weeks. It hasn't been two weeks for a long time, the "New Sanction Regime" was introduced in October 2012 and basic level sanctions started at 4 weeks (missed a signing), intermediate at 12 weeks (missed a MWA, training opportunity) and severe (refusing a job opportunity, multiple ASE violations) could start at 6 months and go for upto 3 years. "Decision-making" was also moved in-house at a number of Jobcentres, our sanction decision-makers were drafted from our FJR team even though people signing were told that it was still sent off. Hardship payments were also cracked down on, you typically only qualified if you had caring responsibilities or you could demonstrate that there was a risk of you being made homeless during the sanctioned period. Only about 30% of hardship applications from our office were approved during a year. Crisis loans were also abolished at this time and handed over to the woefully unprepared local authorities who for the most part ended up ignoring applications. It only seems off to you because you were a step removed from the process, even the WP sanctions were referred through our offices before we sent them to decision makers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 20:13
|
|
