Conservative plans to use the unemployed as free labour

[zeban]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Costs of getting to job interviews are also paid

> for by the job centre. That would even include

> air-fare if it was the cheapest and most efficient

> means of getting there.

I'm sorry but what job centre did you work at???!! this is not true. It's up to individual job centres discretion what they pay for but there's no way they would pay for a flight. They once could help with clothing for an interview but this doesn't always happen and it's in the form of a clothing voucher for a couple of specific shops.

There is

> After 3 months all JSA claimants receive

> half-price bus travel. After 6 they receive half

> price travel on all public transport.

This isn't true at all. After 6 months you can renew your half price bus travel, there's no other transport apart from trams that you get half price on.

You're acting like they give out money willy nilly, they don't at all. They don't pay for training, id you might need, getting certain badges etc, they don't encourage aspirations, and they're more concerned at the moment with filling a government target for sanctioning people. Almost every week there are new government targets they're supposed to focus on.

They have a computer says no kind of approach too. The 3 jobs you put down in your jobseekers agreement to apply for can only come from the computer system so if it's not there you have to choose something that is there. It's all very old fashioned.

You're also only allowed to do a very small amount of voluntary work because whilst signing because they don't want anything to eat into the time you're supposed to be job searching- though for some this would be a good way to give them new skills and confidence to then go for jobs they feel they can do.

[Ladymuck]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't wish to pick fault LadyM, as ideologically

> we are on the same side, but there are some flaws

> with your "option 3".

You pick away DC...because I am going to:)). Apologies for the fisk-style response too - but, I think, it's easier this way.

> You do not pay tax on JSA.

I am afraid you are mistaken. From HM Revenue Customs' website:

EIM76222 - Social security benefits: how much jobseeker's allowance is taxable

Part 10 Chapters 3 and 4 ITEPA 2003

Jobseeker's allowance (JSA) is taxable regardless of whether someone is entitled to contribution based JSA or income based JSA. There are special rules for deciding how much of the JSA someone receives is taxable.

> Fares to the JobCentre are paid if they are more

> than one bus fare ride away. And most urban job

> centres are easily with walking distance for most

> people.

Perhaps. But that means that if the claimant is able to get there on a single bus, that he is not eligible for reimbursement. Easy walking distance? Again, perhaps. My character "Harry Smith" (or was it Jones?) sometimes did the 1.5 hour round trip on foot (from one part of ED to Forest Hill). Time, he felt, could have been more usefully spent pursuing employment.

> You only have to visit the job centre once a

> fortnight. You have to present evidence to show

> you've applied for a minimum of three jobs in that

> fortnight. That's not much to ask in return for

> your benefit.

You are right - it isn't. However, the whole process becomes excruciatingly complicated where our character manages to secure a job interview on "Job Centre" day. The Job Centre proved most inflexible in these situations. In the case of Mr. Harry Smith/Jones, life was made exceedingly difficult. Much time was spent arguing over the phone as Job Centre staff threatened to stop his JSA on the grounds that "failure to attend" on a set day (picked by the Job Centre) would mean that he would have to sign off and re-apply. What a waste of time of resources - on both sides! And what a way to treat an unemployed person, who is already down on his luck and feeling very despondent over having lost his job and not being able to find another sufficiently quickly.

> Costs of getting to job interviews are also paid

> for by the job centre. That would even include

> air-fare if it was the cheapest and most efficient

> means of getting there.

Ha! Excuse the mock DC, but on the one occasion Mr. Smith/Jones attempted to claim interview fares, he was told that reimbursements were not dealt with at that office but that he was free to visit another (Lewisham) and make the application there. In other words, he had to undertake a further journey (to a different office) to make another application. WTF! Needless to say - he didn't bother.

> After 3 months all JSA claimants receive

> half-price bus travel. After 6 they receive half

> price travel on all public transport.

Again, all very well until such time as Mr. Smith/Jones finds one day's work. Then he has to sign off and sign on again (after having performed his one day's work) and because there has been a break in continuity in JSA, he can never be eligible for the reduced fares (because being the hard-working citizen that he is, Mr. Jones/Smith will always take up work - whether it be for one week in ED or one day in Scotland). The system does not appear to be geared for people, like our Mr. Smith/Jones who genuinely wish to help themselves.

> Not all job centre staff are unhelpful or barely

> literate. I was one.

I am sure you are right and I suspect Mr. Smith/Jones would have fared much better (mentally, emotionally and financially) had he had someone like you guiding and assisting him. However, his experience was that of pretty shabby treatment by often rude, uncaring, and - yes - barely literate staff. Shameful.

> I agree the current system is in dire need of

> reform but the overly simplistic pictures I'm

> seeing painted by both sides bear no resemblence

> to what I worked amongst for nearly a year in

> 2009/10.

I should say, I worked (for nearly four years) for various Citizens Advice Bureaux whereupon I spent a good chunk of my time assisting clients who were either being fobbed off or wrongly treated by Job Centre staff. However, I accept that, in that situation, it would be a rare thing to encounter the recipients of JSA who receive a good service.

[david_carnell]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Costs of getting to job interviews are also

> paid

> > for by the job centre. That would even include

> > air-fare if it was the cheapest and most

> efficient

> > means of getting there.

>

> I'm sorry but what job centre did you work at???!!

> this is not true. It's up to individual job

> centres discretion what they pay for but there's

> no way they would pay for a flight. They once

> could help with clothing for an interview but this

> doesn't always happen and it's in the form of a

I worked at a central London job centre. Jobcentre Plus can?t pay for all interviews, the travel-to-interview scheme has the following rules:

you must be out of work and on benefit

you must have been invited to go to an interview for an exact job

you must have been living in your area for at least four weeks

the interview must be in the UK

the interview must be outside your local area (i.e. more than two bus rides away)

the interview must be for a job that will be for 16 hours or more a week and will last more than three months

You can only get help if you go to the job interview. A check will be made with the person you meet that you actually went to the interview.

If you don?t go, you will be expected to pay back any costs you have been paid.

You must apply for help with costs before you go to your interview. Your Jobcentre Plus adviser will have to check some things with the person you are meeting so they can decide if they can help you.

If Jobcentre Plus agree to pay back your travel costs, you must ask for the refund within four weeks of your interview.

Jobcentre Plus may give you money to cover the cost of going to your interview by car. If they do, it can't be more than the cost of a train, bus or coach fare.

Jobcentre Plus may pay you the costs of one or two overnight stays if there is no other option. These costs must be agreed before you go, and you must provide receipts. There is a fixed limit for each night.

> There is

> > After 3 months all JSA claimants receive

> > half-price bus travel. After 6 they receive

> half

> > price travel on all public transport.

>

> This isn't true at all. After 6 months you can

> renew your half price bus travel, there's no other

> transport apart from trams that you get half price

> on.

Again, I'm afraid you're wrong. If you are on the New Deal or Flexible New Deal you will be eligible for a "New Deal Travelcard" which gives you half priec travel on ALL forms of public transport.

> You're acting like they give out money willy

> nilly, they don't at all. They don't pay for

> training, id you might need, getting certain

> badges etc, they don't encourage aspirations, and

> they're more concerned at the moment with filling

> a government target for sanctioning people. Almost

> every week there are new government targets

> they're supposed to focus on.

I'm not saying they give out money willy nilly at all. What I am saying is that there is money available for those that need it. Some training is paid for. College courses for the unemployed are available at vastly subsidised rates. There are crisis loans, grants for those moving to new accomodation, funeral grants, loans for those needing to purchase white goods.

> They have a computer says no kind of approach too.

> The 3 jobs you put down in your jobseekers

> agreement to apply for can only come from the

> computer system so if it's not there you have to

> choose something that is there. It's all very old

> fashioned.

The range of job types available on the system is extensive almost to the point of absurdity. I've seen classifications for jobs I never knew existed. Crofter, anyone? Tobacconist? If you're profession wasn't there you're adviser wasn't looking hard enough. If you don't agree with your job seekers agreement you shouldn't sign it or arrange for it to be changed. Otherwise it is your problem when you are penalised for not meeting its criteria.

> You're also only allowed to do a very small amount

> of voluntary work because whilst signing because

> they don't want anything to eat into the time

> you're supposed to be job searching- though for

> some this would be a good way to give them new

> skills and confidence to then go for jobs they

> feel they can do.

Wrong again. You can volunteer for as many hours as you like while you're claiming Jobseekers' Allowance (JSA), as long as you are still actively seeking work and you aren't legally obliged to volunteer. If any potential jobs that you're suitable for come up, you will need to prioritise them over your voluntary work. This means you can't turn down suitable paid work because of your volunteering commitments. In practical terms, this means you must be free to go to an interview if they give you 48 hours' notice.

[charliecharlie]

I thought the idea was that you do some work in return for the money given to you as unemployment benefit...

I guess it would have to be at a rate that was not below the minimum wage...

[david_carnell]

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't wish to pick fault LadyM, as

> ideologically

> > we are on the same side, but there are some

> flaws

> > with your "option 3".

>

> You pick away DC...because I am going to:)).

> Apologies for the fisk-style response too - but, I

> think, it's easier this way.

Well two can play that game but I'll delete my original comments to make it legible

> I am afraid you are mistaken. From HM Revenue

> Customs' website:

>

> EIM76222 - Social security benefits: how much

> jobseeker's allowance is taxable

> Part 10 Chapters 3 and 4 ITEPA 2003

>

> Jobseeker's allowance (JSA) is taxable regardless

> of whether someone is entitled to contribution

> based JSA or income based JSA. There are special

> rules for deciding how much of the JSA someone

And if you linked to that website here you'd see it is only in rare circumstances when you exceed your personal tax allowance due to premiums being paid. Not unreasonable

> Perhaps. But that means that if the claimant is

> able to get there on a single bus, that he is not

> eligible for reimbursement.

That's correct. He will receive half price bus travel after 3months so a ?1 round trip isn't much money once a fortnight. Any extra requests made by the job centre to attend are fully funded.

> Easy walking

> distance? Again, perhaps. My character "Harry

> Smith" (or was it Jones?) sometimes did the 1.5

> hour round trip on foot (from one part of ED to

> Forest Hill). Time, he felt, could have been more

> usefully spent pursuing employment.

Really? 1.5 hours per fortnight was too much time where he could have been job hunting? The other 166.5 hours proving insufficient I presume?

>

> You are right - it isn't. However, the whole

> process becomes excruciatingly complicated where

> our character manages to secure a job interview on

> "Job Centre" day. The Job Centre proved most

> inflexible in these situations. In the case of

> Mr. Harry Smith/Jones, life was made exceedingly

> difficult. Much time was spent arguing over the

> phone as Job Centre staff threatened to stop his

> JSA on the grounds that "failure to attend" on a

> set day (picked by the Job Centre) would mean that

> he would have to sign off and re-apply. What a

> waste of time of resources - on both sides! And

> what a way to treat an unemployed person, who is

> already down on his luck and feeling very

> despondent over having lost his job and not being

> able to find another sufficiently quickly.

I appreciate that this seems petty. What you have to appreciate is that the "I have an interview today" ruse is one of the most common used to avoid having to attend the job centre by fraudulent claimants. Establishing the legitimacy of the interview is, I think, the right thing to do to combat benefit abuse.

> > Costs of getting to job interviews are also

> paid

> > for by the job centre. That would even include

> > air-fare if it was the cheapest and most

> efficient

> > means of getting there.

>

> Ha! Excuse the mock DC, but on the one occasion

> Mr. Smith/Jones attempted to claim interview

> fares, he was told that reimbursements were not

> dealt with at that office but that he was free to

> visit another (Lewisham) and make the application

> there. In other words, he had to undertake a

> further journey (to a different office) to make

> another application. WTF! Needless to say - he

> didn't bother.

He was misinformed. All offices should do this. An error.

> Again, all very well until such time as Mr.

> Smith/Jones finds one day's work. Then he has to

> sign off and sign on again (after having performed

> his one day's work) and because there has been a

> break in continuity in JSA, he can never be

> eligible for the reduced fares (because being the

> hard-working citizen that he is, Mr. Jones/Smith

> will always take up work - whether it be for one

> week in ED or one day in Scotland). The system

> does not appear to be geared for people, like our

> Mr. Smith/Jones who genuinely wish to help

> themselves.

This is now being amended. It is a fault in the system. As I understand it, the one day break rule is being changed to one week.

> I am sure you are right and I suspect Mr.

> Smith/Jones would have fared much better

> (mentally, emotionally and financially) had he had

> someone like you guiding and assisting him.

> However, his experience was that of pretty shabby

> treatment by often rude, uncaring, and - yes -

> barely literate staff. Shameful.

I am sorry you found that. A situation that was not good enough.

[DJKillaQueen]

I?d be interested to hear what a court has to say about it.

There may well be a legal challenge because as part of the new rules no right of appeal will be allowed for those whose beneifts are suspended, if they miss an interview or don't look for work or take a job and so on (irregardless of the reasons why). Some people will be forced to commit crime to survive in this scenario - is this really what we want?

It wouldn't be right to force the unemployed to do only the most menial, unpleasant, humiliating jobs which the rest of us choose not to do.

And similarly there are employers who choose EU workers over British ones because they can exploit them easier...swings and roundabouts.

To be fair...most claimants are not on new deal Dave so are only eligible for half price bus travel. And whilst there are some resources for the unemployed there aren't nearly enough. There's a distinct lack of shortage of funding for older people who want to retrain because as you know everything has been prioritised for the 16-24 year olds for the past decade (with little success given that they now have the highest rate of unemployment).

Also job centres are not geared up to help skilled, or professionsl workers. I would never find any job even remotely related to my skills and experience in a job centre (which is one reason why Labour se up specialist agencies in recognistion of that).

On the few times I have needed to use a job centre I've found the staff to be useless when it comes to helping people find work (but then that's not why most of them are there to be fair). It's not their fault...the system isn't sophisticated or tailored enough to help most people back into work.

[????]

I read, somewhere, (which doesn't make it true admittedly) that 70% of jobs created during the 14 years of growth were taken up by immigrants which does suggest that, however hard people try and deny it, that some and probably a significant number of people who weren't working during this time didn't want work and for many of these I suspect taking work was'nt actually a sound rational financial decision. A universal credit sytem and a decent minimum wage (WHICH I SUPPORT!!!!) should help to rectify this although will, of course. by how it is measured ( mean income) push more in the non working category further into poverty. BUT the economic situation now is far from ideal for this to be taking place and it makes it far harsher - these reforms should have happened years ago but were too much of a political hot potato and Labour chickened out, i don't neceessarily blame them structural reforms like this have massive unattended consequences and cause real and unfair hardship to many.

[Brendan]

Can a member state of the EU ?ring fence? certain jobs for its own citizens or even incentivise employers (through tax breaks perhaps) to employ its own citizens in preference to those of other member states?

[????]

In theory, nope,free market innit.... but the French always seem to do it Ski instructors being a trivial but probably not unique example

[Brendan]

So this Duncan Smith prat is going to make the long term unemployed teach tourist how to ski?

Or sleep with their wives while they?re out skiing?

Are you sure Britain is ready for such a continental economy?

[Ladymuck]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------------

> And if you linked to that website here you'd see

> it is only in rare circumstances when you exceed

> your personal tax allowance due to premiums being

> paid. Not unreasonable

I was linked into that website - you cheeky sod!

It isn't difficult to exceed one's yearly personal tax allowance - especially if in a relatively well paid job. Take the PTA for Tax Year 09/10 for example, this was ?6,475. Therefore, many people who became unemployed part-way through Tax Year 09/10 would have exceeded their PTA and therefore be liable to tax on JSA. The more they had earned, or the further down the Tax Year they had become unemployed, the more likely they would be in that situation. So hardly a rare circumstance.

> Really? 1.5 hours per fortnight was too much time

> where he could have been job hunting? The other

> 166.5 hours proving insufficient I presume?

Now you are just being flippant...or is that facetious...sarcastic even?!

Other than that, I thank you for you response. And I hope that the amendments/reforms of which you speak ensure that nobody has to endure what our Mr. Jones/Smith had to go through.

[Brendan]

Why don?t we just teach them French? Then they can move over there and live off their benefit system.

[Keef]

You know when you lose your temper and say something you should regret and then revisit it and defend it anyway?

And only subsequently do you realise that actually you REALLY do regret it?

I did that earlier with Huguenot, and I can?t apologise to him or for my own lapse enough

It was quite nice to see you spitting feathers for a change Sean.

But yeah, as someone who has let a bad mood get the better of him on here, and typed some silly things*, I know what you're saying.

* Although I didn't reread it, decide it was spot on, and reinforce it in another post ;-)

[SeanMacGabhann]

At least you didn't start another thread about it this time ;-)

Funnily enough, on THAT occassion I was really giving it to woof - if people think he is obtuse now he was off the scale back then. And as it happens I've enjoyed a few beers with him since then and he's a lovely fella - who woulda thunk it

[DJKillaQueen]

No quids...70% of jobs were not taken by migrants...where on earth did you pluck that one from?

The situation is the same as it has always been with the age old prejudices by employers to certian types of workers but what has happened over the last 14 years is that young people are finding it harder to find their first job. There is evidence that in some parts of the country things like factory work, for example, where many young people would get work (I did it during holidays when I was a student) has been filled with EU migrants by employers...a choice made by employers incidently, not a reflection of applicants.

We have absolutely no way of restricting EU migration. It's a problem and a problem that we as a wealthier EU contry are not alone in facing.

[????]

Take a deep breathe, read again, slowly.

[????]

Sean's always spitting feathers and good on him for it. I've never quite got his cuddly image as balanced and non-polemic poster to be honest...I mean this as a compliment. I think he's generally fair but CUDDLY?

Forgot question mark...which completley spoiled meaning :))

[SeanMacGabhann]

I've never understood it either

loving the replaced question mark btw

[Keef]

Perhaps not cuddly, but I just imagine him walking in to a fight and saying "come on guys, okay, maybe he shagged your sister, but, well, you know... Oh, and could you move the fight over there by the pool table, because it really doesn't belong in this part of the bar, and two other guys already had a very similar fight last week, and the rest of us are getting a bit bored of it. Okay?"

Aaaaanyway, back on topic!

Sorry Sean :))

[BrandNewGuy]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We have absolutely no way of restricting EU

> migration. It's a problem and a problem that we as

> a wealthier EU contry are not alone in facing.

Although to be fair there are more than a million Brits living and working in the EU without restriction.

[????]

I'm one

[DJKillaQueen]

Although to be fair there are more than a million Brits living and working in the EU without restriction.

Absolutely right...

[SeanMacGabhann]

one is one

[DaveR]

EU migration is only a problem if you assume that the effect is to take jobs that UK citizens are willing to do and/or depress wages. They seem like logical assumptions but in fact the evidence, whether anecdotal or statistical, is very thin.

[zeban]

David Carnell, please stop replying 'wrong' at every point I've made. My Mum works at the Highbury Job Centre Plus, and my Sister at the Kentish Town Job Centre Plus- and both are working there now (I'm not sure when you left). Both have also worked there for more than three years.

Technically you're right about volunteering full time BUT this isn't advertised to customers, I found this out from my Mum. The hope is that you will take any job and bring the numbers down so the management of the Job Centres can say 'look how wonderful we are we've helped (insert figure here) many people into work' and filled our targets.

The targets for sanctions that have come in can if the Job Centres can't find any obvious reasons to sanction people and if people are studying part time or doing full time voluntary work ie.trying to increase their chances of getting a job they'll be in the firing line to get sanctioned as they will be seen as not spending enough time/effort looking for work (again, my mum told me this.) A girl was sanctioned for 3 months because she was studying one day a week and the Job Centre saw that as a full time course!

Not all the Job Centres are awful but certainly claiming any kind of expenses is very complicated, not guarenteed and takes a long time to come through, by which time many people give up because they didn't have the expense in the first place.

There are also A LOT of discrepancies between Job Centres, most seemingly due to the particular centres managements own attitude and motivations for being there. Unfortunately not all people who work at these establishments are actually motivated by wanting to help the people that come through their doors. And those that do are really pushed by targets and other such bureaucracy.

You have to be careful with propositions like this. Helping people to re-train would be wonderful but considering all of the cuts I'm wondering about the type of work that will be offered, if it's stuffing envelopes for private companies who have no interest in employing the person afterwards I'm not sure that would build any kind of skills or confidence in the jobseeker which are most important in helping the long term unemployed back into work.

So I'm all for doing this for the right reasons, the right work, the right attitude, but community service is given to people who break the law so there's a serious line that has to be drawn. A proper scheme like this cannot be done on the cheap, it needs a good amount of cash injection, otherwise it might mean private companies may well use this as an opportunity to exploit.